Janjivan Bureau / Chandigarh: Barely 12 hours after clean chit to Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi in a sexual harassment case, another controversy on Tuesday hit judiciary with a “gangrape victim” accusing a sitting and a retired Punjab and Haryana High Court Judge of helping an accused – allegations that were described as “grossest contempt” by the Bench hearing the matter.
The victim, who appeared in person before the Bench of Chief Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Arun Palli, also alleged that her matter was listed before no less than six HC Judges from 2012 to 2017. But instead of deciding the cases, the Judges gave threats to “lodge” contempt of court case against her. She also alleged her matter was transferred to some other court without mentioning any reason. The woman also alleged that the accused with the help of six advocates typed all the interim orders passed by the HC.
Her arguments and three petitions filed in “public interest” indicated that the accused was acquitted/discharged and her appeal before the order was pending before another Bench. Besides this, a contempt matter was also pending against her.
In one of the petitions, she alleged the sitting judge and the now-retired judge were relatives of the accused. “These two Judges are approaching the other Judges in the Punjab and Haryana High Court and as such justice is not being provided to the petitioner,” she alleged.
The “victim” also alleged that she was confined in Faridkot jail in a false contempt case, where women constables tortured to compel her into entering a compromise in the gangrape case. “The senior advocates are threatening her to withdraw the appeal against the acquittal,” she added.
The Bench, during the hearing, asserted she had levelled allegations against a sitting judge, who had nothing to do with the matter and dubbed it as private interest litigation. The Bench added that such matter could be dealt with under the PIL jurisdiction only if the issues involved public at large and the petitioner’s interest also.
Referring to her allegations against senior advocates and judges, the Bench added she had other remedies also under the CrPC. “Have you tried lodging an FIR,” the Bench questioned. “You say you are not getting justice in the High Court? Who drafted the petition? You have not drafted it… Whatever you have suffered, we may have full sympathy with you, but as judges we are bound by law…”
The Bench added efforts would be made to ensure that her cases were decided as early as possible and asked her to come the next morning and “take the order”. In response to her arguments that HC had inherent powers under Article 226 to quash the trial court order of discharging the accused, Chief Justice Murari added he had learnt nothing in his study of law, 22 years at the Bar and 15 years as a Judge, if the Sessions Court order with appeal pending could be quashed under the provision.
