Advocates:
['ABHA RATHORE', 'AMIT DHAWAN', 'PANKAJ BHARDWAJ', '']

Crl. Revision No.1558 of 2010 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

Crl. Revision No.1558 of 2010 (O&M)

Date of decision: 01.09.2010

S.P.S. Rathore

…Petitioner

Versus

Central Bureau of Investigation

…Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

Present: Mrs. Abha Rathore, Advocate with

Ms. Priyanjali, Advocate for the petitioner.

Dr.Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr Standing counsel for the CBI with

Mr. Ajay Kaushik, Advocate.

Mr. Pankaj Bhardwaj, Advocate with

Ms. Anju Sharma, Advocate,

for the complainant.

JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.

Criminal Miscellaneous no. 29590 of 2010

For the reasons mentioned in the main judgment as well as the grounds taken

Crl. Revision No.1558 of 2010 (O&M) 2

in the application, prayer of the complainant Mrs. Madhu Parkash for being impleaded as

respondent in this criminal revision petition, is allowed.

Crl. Misc. application stands disposed of.

MAIN CASE:

1. The present criminal revision petition has been preferred by S.P.S. Rathore, a

former IPS officer of the Haryana state cadre (hereinafter to be referred to as the

petitioner), against the confirmation of his conviction and enhancement of sentence by the

court of first appeal (Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh) under Section 354

IPC vide Judgment dated 25.5.2010. The petitioner was convicted by the learned Trial

Court (Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh) under section 354 IPC and was

sentenced to 6 months imprisonment along with imposition of a fine of Rs.1000/- vide

judgment dated 21.12.2009.

2. An Appeal was filed by the petitioner against his aforementioned conviction

which was dismissed by the learned Court of first appeal (Court of Additional Sessions

Judge, Chandigarh) whereas the appeal filed by the CBI and revision filed by Ms. Madhu

Parkash against inadequacy of sentence was allowed. Consequently, the sentence was

enhanced to 1 year and 6 months but the fine remained the same. The petitioner has

challenged by way of the present criminal revision petition, his conviction under section

354 IPC. In the alternative, the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for release of

the petitioner on probation.

Crl. Revision No.1558 of 2010 (O&M) 3

3. In order to appreciate the issues involved and adjudicate them, it is necessary

to give a brief recapitulation of the relevant factual aspects of the case, which is as

follows.

4. It was the allegation of the prosecution that on 12.8.1990 at about 12 noon,

Ms. Ruchika Girhotra (since deceased), a promising tennis player, along with her friend,

Ms. Aradhana was called by the petitioner who was standing near the makeshift office of

the then Haryana Lawn Tennis Association (‘HLTA’ for short) which was set up in the

under construction house of the petitioner itself, in sector 6 Panchkula. It was also alleged

that the petitioner had visited the house of Ms. Ruchika on 11.8.1990 and had requested

Sh. S.C. Girhotra, father of Ms. Ruchika, not to send her to Canada for specialized tennis

coaching. The petitioner is said to have promised that he would be arranging special

coaching for her at HLTA itself and for this purpose he asked Sh. S.C. Girhotra to send

Ruchika to meet him the following day around 12 noon at the HLTA office.

5. Ms. Ruchika and her friend Ms. Aradhana, both of whom were also residents

of Sector 6 Panchkula, had gone to the tennis courts of HLTA for practicing