Rakesh Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 2 June, 2017

CRM No.M-20762 of 2017(OM) [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

Criminal Misc. No.M- 20762 of 2017(OM)
Date of Decision: June 2 , 2017.

Rakesh Kumar …… PETITIONER (s)

Versus

State of Punjab and others …… RESPONDENT (s)

CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present: Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
*****

LISA GILL, J.

There is a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and

respondent No.5. The petitioner seeks a direction to the official respondents to

take an appropriate action against respondent No.5 in terms of the findings

arrived at in an inquiry conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police

(Complaints), Gurdaspur. It is contended that respondent No.5 – Nishi Bains

i.e., the petitioner’s wife is working as a Staff Nurse, PHC, Behrampur as well as

a Clinical Instructor in Aman Bhalla College of Nursing, Jammu-Amritsar

Highway Kotli, District Pathankot. She is thus committing a fraud with the

government by illegally working at two place at the same time. The Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur had illegally refused to take any action on

the ground that in case any action is to be taken it is for the department to initiate

1 of 3
11-06-2017 00:46:20 :::
CRM No.M-20762 of 2017(OM) [2]

the same (Annexure P1 dated 29.04.2015). Thereafter the Assistant

Commissioner of Police (Complaints), Gurdaspur looked into the matter and

concluded that respondent No.5 besides being a Staff Nurse was working at the

Aman Bhalla College of Nursing from 28.10.2010 to 31.10.2013. However,

request was made for transfer of the said inquiry to which the officer had no

READ  Sunita Jain vs Pawan Kumar Jain & Ors on 25 January, 2008

objection. The petitioner yet again submitted a complaint (not on record of this

case) however, no action has been taken. Thus aggrieved, this petition has been

filed.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone

through the file.

It is not in dispute that there is a matrimonial dispute between the

petitioner and respondent No.5. An FIR under Section 406/498A IPC stands

registered against the petitioner at Police Station Behrampur, District Gurdaspur

at the instance of respondent No.5. Proceedings under the Protection of Women

from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 have been initiated by respondent No.5

against the petitioner. The petitioner has filed a petition under the Hindu

Marriage Act seeking divorce from respondent No.5.

Therefore in the present factual matrix where the petitioner and

respondent No.5 are involved in multifarious litigation arising out of

matrimonial discord, it is not considered just and expedient to interfere in the

matter in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The possibility of

one party trying to settle scores in an oblique manner cannot be ruled out.

Furthermore, it is always open for the concerned department to take appropriate

action in case respondent No.5 is found to be working simultaneously at two

2 of 3
11-06-2017 00:46:21 :::
CRM No.M-20762 of 2017(OM) [3]

places as alleged.

This petition is accordingly dismissed.

However, it is clarified that there is no expression of opinion on the

merits of the controversy regarding holding of two posts simultaneously by

respondent No.5 and the competent authority is obviously free to take a decision

READ  Athar Hussain Vs. Syed Siraj Ahmed & Ors. on 5 January, 2010

if/as and when the matter may be before it.

( LISA GILL )
June 2 , 2017. JUDGE
‘om’

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No

3 of 3
11-06-2017 00:46:21 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *