Termination a conspiracy by officials, claims DCPO

Rachna Khaira

Tribune News Service

Jalandhar, July 17

While District Child Protection Officer (DCPO) Gurpreet Sodhi was relieved from the services ‘permanently’ following a complaint filed by Jalandhar Police Commissioner Praveen Sinha, the official has termed his sudden ‘termination’ a conspiracy by some officials of his department.

While speaking to The Tribune, Sodhi said the complaint sent by the Police Commissioner was forwarded by Inspector Onkar Singh, former area SHO of the Police Division No. 7, who was investigating the case of the missing children of a BSF officer posted in J&K. Also, five more complaints lodged against the DCPO were found to contain more shades of suspicion.

“As per Juvenile Justice (Protection and Care) Act, 2015, it is mandatory to lodge an FIR of a missing child within 24 hours so as to share the information on the national portal of missing children. IT is done to facilitate the recovery of a child in the case in case he was found by someone else in some other district or state. However, in this case, despite lodging a complaint by the parents on March 20 this year, the SHO lodged an FIR on April 7 after the child’s father came on leave and questioned the delay,” said Sodhi.

He said though it were the parents who recovered the child from his grandmother’s home in Jalandhar, along with police officials of the special branch team, the area SHO refused to hand over the child to them and instead kept him in Pingalwara for days,” Sodhi alleged.

Also he claimed that though the child was missing for over a week and he insisted on getting a medical done, the police refused to do it and handed it over to its parents.

Also supporting his claim were parents of the missing child, Ajay and Anjali Kapila, who said despite making repeated requests, the SHO did not lodge an FIR.

While speaking to The Tribune, Anjali said once the child was recovered from his grandmother’s house, the SHO threatened to lodge a case against her for harassing the child.

“He was upset for engaging the team from the special branch to recover the child and even threatened to put me in jail for harassing my child as a stepmother,” said Anjali, adding that despite urging him to return his son, the SHO sent him to Pingalwara.

While accepting the delay in lodging the FIR, SHO Onkar Singh, now posted as the SHO at the Division No. 6, said he did not lodge an FIR at the request of the parents.

“Since the parents were staying inside the BSF headquarters, the father did not want the matter to be highlighted before his senior officials. Also, the boy was not handed over to his parents as he does not want to stay with them,” claimed the SHO.

The SHO claimed that once the child was recovered, he called Sodhi to take the boy to the child care centre, but the DCPO refused to come in the midnight.

When asked, Sodhi said despite recovering the child in the evening, the SHO called him in the midnight to harass him, adding that instead of calling him the SHO should have called the child helpline 1098.    

Sodhi said the SHO had lodged a complaint against him at the behest of the official.

“The official was involved in a lot of malpractices within the department. Even before the department could initiate an inquiry on my report, he while taking benefit of his influence, got me terminated,” said Sodhi refusing to name the official.