The case is popularly called the ‘butt slapping case’. It was one of the most condemned and prominent cases. Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj, an officer of the Indian Administrative Services belonging to the Punjab Cadre was, at that time, working as the Special Secretary, Finance. On 29th July, 1988 she filed a complaint to the Inspector General of Police, Chandigarh Union Territory claiming the charges for offences under Sections 341, 342, 352, 354, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. She claimed that Mr. K.P.S. Gill, the Director General of Police, Punjab had committed the mentioned offences on July 18, 1988, at a dinner party. Treating her complaint as the First Information Report, the Central Police Station, Chandigarh had commenced an investigation against Mr. Gill regarding the claimed offences. Mr. BR Bajaj, the husband of Mrs. Bajaj and also a senior IAS officer had lodged another complaint to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Mr. Bajaj claimed that Mr. Gill is a senior inspector of Chandigarh Police and there may be a probability that the investigation proceedings against him will not be conducted in a fair and just manner. There are chances of partial and favorable treatment. Observing the complaint, Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) instructed the judicial magistrate to look into the matter. As per the instructions, the magistrate asked for the investigation report. During this time, Mr. Gill filed a petition in the High Court for dismissal of the FIR. Initially, he got the interim order of stay on the investigation proceedings and later the High Court ordered the dismissal of both the FIR and the complaint against Mr. Gill. Offended by the conflicting order of the Hon’ble High Court, both Mr. and Mrs. Bajaj filed an appeal petition in the Supreme Court.
Brief facts of the case:-
Mr. Gill and Mr. and Mrs. Bajaj were attending a party on 18th July, 1988, organized by Shri SL Kapur, who was a common colleague of both the parties. There were 20 to 25 couples present at the party. Mr. Gill’s wife was not with him at the party. Around 10 pm, Mr. Gill walked towards the ladies’ circle and sat beside them. He requested Mrs. Bajaj, who was talking to other ladies at that time, to sit next to him as he had something important to discuss with her. Reacting to his request, Mrs. Bajaj came to sit on the chair next to him. When she was about to sit, Mr. Gill suddenly dragged the chair close to his chair. When she pulled her chair back, he again repeated his action and dragged her chair closer to him. Offended by this act of Mr. Gill and realising something was wrong, she immediately left the place and went back to the ladies’ circle. After 10 minutes of this incident, Mr. Gill again went towards the ladies’ circle and asked Mrs. Bajaj to get up immediately and come along with him. She strongly objected to his act and asked him to leave but he repeated his command and asked her to come with him. When she tried to leave the place, he blocked her way. At last, she dragged her chair and moved backwards. Mr. Gill suddenly slapped on her posterior in front of all the people present at the party. Offended by this act, she filed a complaint against him. When the FIR and complaint were dismissed by the order of the High Court, she filed an appeal in the Supreme Court.
Mrs. Indira Jaisingh was the counsel on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner strongly asserted that while executing its power under Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the High Court has infringed the general principles of law in the case by intervening with the legal powers of police to inquire into apparent offences. It was also asserted that there is an application of Section 95 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the High Court in its proceedings, which is completely unjustified and unreasonable because when the matter is of humiliation of women, this section can’t be applied. It was also contended that it is a serious unjustified act committed by the High Court by dismissing the FIR giving reason of unusual delay in filing of FIR even when the reason of delay was clearly explained by the complainant. Mr. Tulsi, Additional Solicitor General, was the counsel on behalf of the respondents. It was asserted by the respondents that the claims made by the petitioners in the FIR were within the extent of Section 95 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the decision of the High court of dismissing the FIR was completely reasonable and justifiable as the FIR was filed to defame the respondent and the complainant is trying to take revenge of personal enmity by wrongfully blaming Mr. Gill in the court case. It was strongly asserted that the application of Section 95 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 in the case and its facts is completely justifiable and reasonable.
The Supreme Court instructed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh to take notice of the police reports for the offences under Section 359 and Section 509 of IPC. The bench comprising of Justice MK Mukherjee and Justice AS Anand stated that the appeal was filed to find that whether the prima facie case for investigation exists or not. After observing the matter, the Court instructed the CJM to commence the investigation. The magistrate will be from any kind of influenced by any of the observations made by the Court. It will be upon the magistrate’s choice and disposition to check the shreds of evidence and decide whether the accused be punished or not. Thus, the appeal of Mr. and Mrs. Bajaj was permitted and sufficient relief was provided to them by cancelling the judgment of the High Court.
Dismissing an FIR and complaint just on the grounds of delay in its filing is completely unreasonable and unjustifiable. Cancelling an FIR by the Court should be on the grounds of some material and reasonable facts. The Court should consider the reasons behind the delay. It will be a serious injustice for the parties if the general principles of law will be ignored and particularly in cases of vulnerable sections of society. In the present case, the Court has approved the fact that Section 95 of IPC cannot be applied in cases involving women humiliation.
Author’s information
Harshit Choudhary
a law student from S.S. Jain Subodh Law College,
Jaipur, Rajasthan, India.