M A I N   N E W S

HC orders protection for Mamta

CHANDIGARH, Dec 22 (UNI) — The Punjab and Haryana High Court today directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra, to safeguard the life and liberty of Mamta who had sought a CBI inquiry into her molestation allegedly by Punjab’s Additional Director-General of Police B.P. Tiwari and posted the hearing to January 5.

Mr Justice V.M. Jain directed to the SSP, Kurukshetra, to also protect the family members of Mamta following a request from the petitioner’s counsel till the case was on in the court.

Counsel for Mamta pleaded for the CBI inquiry into the incident, while the Punjab Government counsel said the state police chief had already initiated an inquiry into the matter which would be completed within 15 days.

The petitioner submitted that she had no faith in the inquiry being conducted by the Punjab Police.

Our legal correspondent adds: During arguments in the petition filed by 19-year-old Mamta Sharma of Kurukshetra, an alleged complaint filed by the ADGP’s gunman, Mr Onkar Singh, before the Punjab Human Rights Commission last year was produced in court.

In the complaint it was stated that the gunman used to get girls for Mr Tiwari, who was running a beauty parlour known as “Peacock Beauty Parlour” at his residence, where he allegedly used to have sex with the girls.

Counsel submitted before Mr Justice V.M. Jain that the complaint against Mr Tiwari was not the only one to allege sexual misbehaviour by Mr Tiwari. There was also the statement of the daughter of the petitioner Mrs Sandhya Bansal, who has stated that the allegations against Mr Tiwari were correct and that a CBI investigation was necessary. He further submitted that after 5 p.m. the ADGP went home and drank in the company of young girls.

Counsel further submitted that if the inquiry was entrusted to the state authorities, the petitioner apprehended that it would not be fair. He mentioned the statement of a woman journalist, who stated that when she went to take her interview, he was drunk and addressed her as ‘my darling’.

Mr G.S. Gill, Deputy Advocate-General appearing for the state submitted that the DGP has already ordered investigation against Mr Tiwari by Mr S.V. Singh, Additional D.G.P. (Crime), Punjab, on the basis of reports.

He further contended that so far the petitioner had not made any complaint to the SHO or the SSP or any other authority. He cited a judgement of the Supreme Court submitting that first of all under the law the aggrieved person was required to approach the SHO, then the SSP and if they did not pay attention, he could approach a magistrate, competent to hold an inquiry.

Counsel for the petitioner again intervened citing the Ruchika case, in which the High Court has already ordered a CBI inquiry. He further submitted that victims of Mr Tiwari were ready to depose against him, but might not come forward before a state authority.

Counsel for the state told the court that the petitioner and his alleged uncle and the mother of the petitioner were called by the ADGP (Crime), who was holding the inquiry to appear before him and give the facts, but they had refused on the pretext that their case had been fixed in the High Court.