In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National Capital Territory of Delhi
25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2
Phone-011-23216002-04, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]
Case No.907/1111/2019/05/3010-3014 Dated:19/02/2021
In the matter of:
Ms. Sushma Rani,
A-25, Gali No. 5, ChanderVihar,
Delhi-110092. ……Complainant
Versus
The DCP,
East District,
6B, I.P. Extension, Patparganj,
Delhi-110092. …..Respondent No. 1
Smt. Anjana Chauhan,
C-7/53, Jagatpuri Extension,
Near G.T.B. Hospital,
Delhi-110093. ….Respondent No. 2
(impleaded on 05.08.2019)
Sh. Chehtan Chauhan,
C-7/53, Jagatpuri Extension,
Near G.T.B. Hospital,
Delhi-110093. ….Respondent No. 3
(impleaded on 05.08.2019)
Sh. Surjan Singh Chauhan,
C-7/53, Jagatpuri Extension,
Near G.T.B. Hospital,
Delhi-110093. ….Respondent No. 4
(impleaded on 05.08.2019)
ORDER
The above named applicant, Smt. Sushma Rani w/o Sh. Jaipal Chauhan, a person with more than 40% locomotor disability had filed a complaint dated 17.05.2019, received on 21.05.2019 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Act 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act.The Complainant submitted that her sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Ms. Anjana Chauhan and her relatives interfered in her marital life, mistreat, insult, intimidate her and no action was taken on her complaint by the police.
2. The complaint was taken up with the respondent(s) vide notice dated 30.05.2019 with the advice to send action taken report by 27.06.2019.
3. On 19.12.2019, during the hearing the complainant was contacted on telephone and reiterated her written submission in her complaint and the rejoinder to the report of DCP, East District. As per her, the report was not true. She had been advised to submit the grounds/supporting documents/evidence, if any.
4. Ms. Anjana Chauhan and Sh. Surjan Singh Chauhan (respondent no. 2 & 4) were appeared and denied the allegations. They had also submitted the written reply on behalf of respondent No. 2, 3 & 4 alongwith a copy of each for the complainant. The complainant had requested that she will get the said replied collected by hand from this Court.
5. Sh. Sanjay Sondhi, SDM HQ5, Revenue Department was also appeared and reiterated that Divisional Commissioner is not an essential party in this matter as already submitted. The issue before the Divisional Commissioner had no connection with this complaint and therefore Divisional Commissioner might be removed from the array of respondents. The same was accepted and the Divisional Commissioner was removed from the array of respondents. The memo of parties was accordingly changed.
6. After hearing the parties, it was observed that the case before the Divisional Commissioner was an appeal of the mother of the complainant against the order dated 01.01.2019 of District Magistrate (East) directing SHO (Mandavli) to shift Ms. Anjana Chauhan (respondent no. 2 in this case) to her matrimonial home. The case which was reported to be pending in Karkarduma Court also had no relation with this case as that case relates to a family dispute between the parties.
7. It was made clear that the complainant herein had alleged infringement of her right as a person with disability and abuse, intimidation and threatening etc. by respondent no. 2, 3 & 4 in violation of Section 92 of the Act.
8. DCP, East District (respondent no. 1) was therefore directed to investigate the matter and submit a fresh report strictly with reference to the complaint dated 17.05.2019 filed by the complainant and rejoinder submitted by her on 12.12.2019 on the report of the Police.
9. In response to above direction an ATR dated 14.08.2020 was received from ACP/PG, East Delhi on 17.08.2020, which is reproduce as under:
“In this connection, it is submitted that as per the report of ACP/MadhuVihar. During the course of enquiry, E.O./ASI Sunil Kumar, PS MadhuVIhar visited the house of complainant and met her and her husband namely Jaipal Chauhan. But the complainant refused to give her statement regarding her complaint and she stated that she will send her statement by post. She further stated that 2 years ago, her sister-in-law namely Anjana Chauhan came to her house and quarreled with her but the complainant did not make any complaint. About this incident, the complainant had no evidence or recording. After receiving her statement by post which she deposed that she made a complaint to the office of “The Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities” on 17.05.2019 and the commission directed the local police for conducting an enquiry into the matter. In her statement dated 23.03.2020, Anjana Chauhan, Chetan Chauhan and Suranjan Singh Chauhan had used to harass her. But she wants an action against them for the torture done by them in the past. She further stated that if they harass her in future, she will make a complaint against them.”
10. Taking into considerations of fact/reply received from Police Authority, it is recommended that if at any stage, the complainant is abused, insulted, intimated, humiliated, assaulted or force is used against her by any person, she should report the matter to the SHO who shall immediately take appropriate action under the law. It should also be noted that a person with disability may not always be able to provide evidence for such incidents. The concerned police officers therefore should use best of their skills and resources to ensure that the rights and the dignity of persons with disabilities like the complainant who are extremely vulnerable, are protected.
11. The complaint is disposed of.
12. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 19thday of February, 2021.
(Ranjan Mukherjee)
State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
No comments:
Post a Comment