High Court refused to grant interim relief to the woman making false charge of rape.

 

[Breaking] High court refused to grant interim relief to the woman making false charge of rape.

Court files  the complaint against the woman making false charge of rape.

Assistant Registrar of the court becomes the complainant and the woman is made accused.

Charges against woman are punishable with life imprisonment and having minimum  imprisonment of 10 years.

 

Mumbai: Today Bombay High Court Judge A. S. Gadkari refused the accused woman’s request  to grant interim stay to the order or exemption from appearance in the  proceeding  against her by the subordinate court under sec 340 of Cr. P. C.

Ad Nilesh Ojha,  the counsel for de facto complainant Sh. Manish Milani pointed out the court that the woman is playing hide and sick with the court and had not disclosed the correct facts. She approached the court with unclean hands. She is challenging the order of Sessions Judge but the said order is already been complied and now the stage had gone up to the stage of filing compliant against her. The said order taking cognizance  is appealable under sec 341 of Cr. P. C. and  no petitition lies before high court.

Furthermore the woman dispite having her falsity proved again making same statement on oath and therefore she is liable for seprate action under 340 before High Court.

Then the  counsel for accused woman Sh. Rizwan Merchant prayed for amending the petition and requested for interim relief. The Counsel for de facto complainant Mr. Nilesh Ojha said that the amendment may be permitted and he will file his client’s reply and will also point out her falsity and dishonesty before High court which will make her liable for separate action under sec 340 of Cr. P. C. as has been done by the Supreme Court in recent case of ABCD vs. UOI (2020) 2 SCC 523.

Then  court permitted for amending the petition to add the subsequent development of prosecution against her, but the court refused to grant any interim relief to the accused woman Ruchika Mehar.

 On 24.12. 2020, the JMFC Wai Court, District Satara had directed its officer to register complaint against the Woman.

While ordering the prosecution against accused woman Ruchika Mehar the court observed as under;

“ 10. …On that basis, in present inquiry, I come to the conclusion that informant of said crime has given false FIR at Wai police station as well false statement on oath under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Court of Justice. Therefore, it appears to me that the informant being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, but she has given false FIR as well as false statement under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court. The informant has given statement on oath under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wai, inspite of knowledge that the FIR lodged by her is false. Informant has lodged false FIR with intent to cause injury to the present applicant and to Bhisham Parwani, knowing that no just or lawful ground for further proceeding on the basis of that false FIR.

11. Therefore. I record my finding that Criminal Prosecution is required to be initiated against the respondent No. 2 of this application who is informant of Crime No. 08/2020 registered at Wai police station for the offences punishable under Section 193, 194, 199, 200 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code as per Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She has prima facie committed aforesaid offences in relation to B summary proceeding before this Court. …………..

 

12. Considering all above grounds, a complaint is required to be filed against the present respondent No. 2 for the offences punishable under Section 193, 194, 199, 200 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code as per Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As per Section 195(1) (b)(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, it is required to authorize officer of this court to file a written complaint on behalf of this Court against respondent No. 2 in this Court. Therefore, proceed to pass following order:

:: ORDER::

1. Application is partly allowed.

2. S. D. Dhekane, Assistant Superintendent of Civil and Criminal Court Wai is authorised and directed to file a Written Complaint against the respondent No. 2 Ruchika Pradeep Meher as per Section 195(1)(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the offences punishable under Section 193, 194, 199, 200 and 211 of the Indian
Penal Code.

3. The record of present application as well as original record of B summary report and protest petition shall be tagged with that complaint. …”

 

As per the said order the Assistant Superintendent of Civil and Criminal Court Wai   has filed a complaint before another Magistrate.

It can be downloaded below.

 

Similar complaint was also filed by the registrar of the City Civil Court Mumbai against builder Khandelwal and others.

It can be downloaded here

 

12. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

12.1. The application given by the de facto complainant who is a renowned businessman from Pune Mr. Manish Milani is that, he has a huge property of Eighty Acres (80 acres of land)  at prime locality at Vimannagar Pune. The property cost runs in billions(many thousand Crores). Due to high stakes involved in the property, some people had hatched an orchestrated  conspiracy to extort money from him and in the said conspiracy,  the mischievous elements prepared false and forged documents to stake their claim in the said property. However the Pune Civil judge Senior Division directed prosecution under sec 340 of Cr P C against two public servants. The said order directing prosecution of public servants is confirmed by the Bombay high Court and by the Supreme Court. [Union of India Vs Harish Milani 2017 MH L J 447]

12.2. Thereafter, three more accused persons were arrested by Pune Police in a trap while accepting the  cheque for extortion money of Rs. 5 Crores.

12.3. The main conspirator Adv. Sagar Rajabhau Suryavanshi was also arrested by the Pune Police and he is charge sheeted in many cases. The said Sagar Suryavanshi is absconded as Supreme Court rejected his bail application and despite the direction from Supreme Court, he has failed to surrender before Pune Court.

He is accused  in many cases pending against him at different police station in Maharashtra state.

12.4. Despite being absconder,  said Sagar Suryavanshi  again hatched the conspiracy to pressurize the applicant and in pursuance of the said conspiracy,  he hired a few women and started filing false rape cases against the Applicant. However all the cases were found to be false and the police closed all the cases by submitting B Summary report in the court. The applicant lodged the counter complaint by sending mail to the higher police authorities explaining the true facts.  The police officer after verifying the mobile tower locations of both i.e. the accused woman and  Applicant victim, and also considering the other relevant evidences, concluded that the applicant has been falsely implicated.

12.5. In the First Information report bearing No. 08/2020 (in short FIR) dated 18.01.2020 registered at Wai Police Station, Panchgani, Satara by the said woman, it was stated that the  applicant and one
more person committed rape on her under promise to give her job as receptionist in Hotel at Panchgani. It is alleged in FIR that, on 24.07.2019, these accused had committed rape on her person at isolated place on Wai to Panchgani road in a vehicle.It is further alleged that, while committing rape by present applicant and his friend the third person present with them had taken photos of alleged incident from
his cell phone. The FIR was registered  under Section 376(d), 323, 504,506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

12.6. Assistant Police Inspector, A. D. Kamble has carried out the investigation of the said crime During investigation, During investigation, he collected Call Details Report (in Short CDRs). During investigation, it was revealed that the present applicant was not in India  and was in foreign country on the date of alleged incident. Therefore, the IO collected the report from Foreign Regional Registration Officer, Mumbai and Report of Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi.

12.7. On the basis of material collected in investigation, I.O. arrived at the  conclusion that FIR lodged by informant is false and maliciously false and therefore, he has filed B summary report in Court.

12.8. After filing of B summary report, say of informant came to be called. After service of notice, informant appeared in the proceeding and resisted B summary report by filing protest petition. In her protest petition, she reiterated her contentions made in FIR.

 The Court has accepted the B summary report and rejected the protest petition filed by the accused woman Ruchika Mehar.