Chatter Singh Rachhoya v. State

1. By the present petitions, the petitioners pray for a mandamus to the respondents to provide adequate and proper police protection for protecting the iife and liberty ofthe petitioners. W.R(CRL) 2429/2017 page 1 of[4] 2018:DHC:9092

2. Case of the petitioners is that petitioners are social workers and petitioner Bhoomi Chatter Singh Rachhoya wife of Chatter Singh Rachhoya (petitioner, in W.P. Crl 2429/2017) was offered bribe of ?2 lakhs by Tarsempal arid Dharampal for hot taking any action against the unauthorised construction. In respect thereof a complaint was lodged and a trap was laid, wherein Tarsempal and Dharampal were arrested in RC-DAL-2014-A-0029 ' dated 22"'' July, 2014 U/s 12 ofthe Prevention ofCorruption Act.

3. On 17^*^ April, 2016 during the course of trial when the petitioner, Chatter Singh Rachhoya, and his wife were to be examined, petitioner ^Chatter Singh Rachhoya was threatened by one person with a pistol to give deposition in favour ofthe accused..

4. On the complaint of Chatter Singh Rachhoya FIR No. 203/2016 under Section 195A was registered atPS Nangloi on 19^*^ April, 2016.

5. In view of the exemption application, filed before the learned Trial Court a serious view was taken by the learned Trial Court and DCP West was directed to ensure adequate protection to the petitioners.

6. It is also the case of the petitioners that Bhoomi Singh Rachhoya also lodged another complaint at PS Kamla Market for misuse ofthe official seal and writing of forged letters on her behalf to Commissioner North DMC on which FIR No. 169/2016 under Section 468/471/420 IPG was registered against 17 individuals, on 22"^ Jiily, 2016! As per the petitioners, since petitioners are fighting against coriiiption many disgruntled elements, are against them. Learned ASC for the State submits thatin view ofthe order dated 21®^ April, 2016 passed by the learned Special Court, CBI one PSO was provided W.R(CRL) 2429/2017 page 2 of[4] ( r to the petitioners and after they were examined an application was filed by the State before the learned Special Court on September, 2017 stating that the PSOs deployed with the protectees were making complaint regarding the ' unethical behaviour and unlawful instmctioiis which were given to them by both the protectees and as per the internal assessment' regarding threat •perception to both the protectees, they did not face any security threat or breach during the last 18 months. It'was also pointed out that six cases have been registered against the petitioners from the year 2001 till 2015.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even before the ' application for review was filed by the State before the learned Special Court the petitioners approached this Court for adequate protection,

8. As was noted by the local police that no further protection in the form ofPSOs was required as the petitioners who are witnesses have since been examined in Februaiy, 2017, the State intended to withdraw the security of the petitioners, this Court on 19^^ January, 2018 as a matter of abundant caution directed DCP Special Cell to weigh the threat perception to the petitioners and submit a report. Status report has been submitted by the DCP Special Cell. As per the status report no specific threats- or fi-esh threats are stated to have been received by the petitioners. The complaints of the petitioners were also examined and 9onsidered. It was also noted that the petitioners misused the PSOs publically in order to show their power, did not deal with the PSOs in a dignified manner and in this regard DD entries were made by local police and the PSOs. Thus the Special Cell did not recommend providing security to the petitioners as there was no specific threat to them, however, keeping W.P.(CRL) 2429/2017 page 3of[4] r \ r. -in view the previous registered cases and alleged enmity in the local area it was recommended that the local,police through beat staff and division staff and PGR, in the area be directed to keep close watch on their residence and office. Since the petitioners have been examined in Court as witnesses there,. was no need of PSOs. 9,. Considering the status report submitted by DCP Special Cell the writ petitions are disposed of directing SHO PS Nangloi to ensure protection of • • '.. • " ' ' • c the petitioners through beat and division staff and in case of any specific complaint action thereon be taken in accord^ce with law.. MUKTA GUPTA, J.