New Delhi, May 6
In a major relief to former Haryana Director-General of Police (DGP) S.P.S. Rathore in a case of alleged harassment of the brother of Panchkula-based girl Ruchika Gehrotra, who had committed suicide in 1993 after levelling the charges of “molestation” against the police officer, the Supreme Court today quashed the judicial inquiry against him ordered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Allowing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) of the DGP challenging the High Court’s 2002 order, a Bench comprising Mr Justice Y.K. Sabharwal and Mr Justice P.P. Naolekar set it aside. However, the detailed judgement was not immediately available.
The High Court had directed the Patiala District Judge to hold an inquiry against Rathore whether he was instrumental in foisting six “false” cases against Ruchika’s brother Ashu Gherotra for taking the cause of his sister who could not withstand the alleged molestation bid on her and committed suicide. It had also directed the District Judge to find out if any compensation could be granted to Ashu for his harassment by the police, which had registered false cases against him.
The High Court had taken suo motu notice of the matter after reports of the alleged molestation of the girl and the harassment of her brother appeared in media after Ashu was discharged in all cases in 1997. After the High Court notice, Ahsu had filed an affidavit before it alleging that six “false” cases were registered against him at the behest of Rathore.
According to his counsel’s argument in the apex court, Ashu had further alleged that he was picked up by the police and badly “tortured” in the police station and the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) establishments in the presence Rathore, who was at that time a senior officer of the force and had “personally” threatened him that he and his family would be
eliminated. When the High Court took cognisance of the matter, Rathore was the DGP Haryana.
Rathore, who is already facing trial for alleged “outraging the modesty” of Ruchika, in his SLP had contended that the charges of Ashu’s harassment of levelled against him were false.
His counsel Udai Lalit during the arguments had questioned the High Court’s action taking suo motu notice of the matter merely on the basis of media reports and ordering judicial inquiry into it.
On the other hand Ashu’s counsel during the final argument on March 31 when the judgement in the case was reserved by the apex court, could not give satisfactory reply to court’s specific query as why his client had not moved the High Court on his own before he was asked to file an affidavit on a suo motu notice by it.
Ashu’s counsel had merely cited the findings of High Court stating that all the six cases registered against his client, were found to be false by the lower courts, which had quashed the proceedings in all cases against him in 1997 after which the
matter was reported by media.
