‘Molestation’ case at CLTA: Court rejects plea to issue direction to cops for FIR against three officials

Chandigarh, July 26

Swati Sehgal, Judge, Fast Track Special Court, has rejected the plea for issuing direction to the police for registration of an FIR against three office-bearers of the Chandigarh Lawn Tennis Association (CLTA) in an alleged molestation case.

A Mohali resident had filed a complaint under Section 156 (3) of the CrPC before the court for issuing the direction to the police to register an FIR against three officials of the CLTA for allegedly shielding the alleged molesters of his daughter and abetting the crime. The court, in its order, says: “Perusal of the matter will reveal that the allegations levelled by the complainant in the present matter do not require any discovery of evidence”.

“Evidence/documents are within the knowledge of the complainant, which can conveniently be summoned with the assistance of the court, during the course of evidence of the complainant. In such circumstances, the request for sending the complaint under Section 156 (3), CrPC, is declined. However, it is registered as a complaint. The matter is adjourned to September 7 for recording preliminary evidence of the complainant,” the court said.

The court has also allowed the complainant to place on record the documents under Section 91 of the CrPC. The complainant said his daughter was a trainee at the Chandigarh Lawn Tennis Association (CLTA) in year 2019 when she was allegedly molested and harassed by four-five trainees. He alleged that the three respondents, who are the office-bearers in various capacities in the CLTA in different times, failed to take appropriate action against the alleged molesters as per the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, particularly under Sections 16 and 19 of the Act.

He said an FIR was registered against the alleged molesters on August 17, 2019, under Sections 354, 354-A, 354-D, 506 of the IPC and Section 10 and 12 of the POCSO Act at the Sector 3 police station, Chandigarh. He alleged that the respondents despite having the knowledge of the act and conduct of co-trainees (accused persons) did not take any action against them.

He alleged that the victim was called in the office and threatened to withdraw the allegations against the accused. He demanded that an FIR be ordered to be registered against these office-bearers under Section 156 (3) of the CrPC for offences under Sections 499, 500, 506, 509, 166-A read with Section 120-B of the IPC and Section 16 of the POCSO Act. The victim’s father also claimed that the investigating officer, in her report, has also recorded that offences under the Section 21 of the POCSO Act, Sections 499, 500 and 506 of the IPC are prima facie made out against these officials. But the IO mentions that since the offences are non-cognisable, the complainant was suggested to file a complaint in the competent court. — TNS