[Biggest Breaking]First time ever in Indian history the woman levelling a false charge of rape is prosecuted by the court for the offence of perjury u. sec 194 of IPC which is punishable with imprisonment for life.[Read order]
1. On an application under Sec 340 of Cr P C the court has directed the officer of court to lodge a complaint against the persecutor woman, Ruchika Mehar, before Magistrate u. sec 193,194,199,200,211 of IPC.
2. The offences slapped against the woman are non bailable and attract punishment of imprisonment for life, and the the minimum punishment cannot be below ten years.
3. Police report is based on the reports from Intelligence Bureau (IB), Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi.
Legal experts say that as per the rulings on perjury the accused woman should not be allowed bail and should be tried undertrial.[ Dilip Patel 2011 SCC OnLine Guj 7522, Arvindervi Singh (1998) 6 SCC 352, Ashok Sarogi’s Case 2016 ALL MR (Cri) 3400]
4. The Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah’s case (2005) had ruled that cases like this, should be tried with a sense of urgency. Same law has been followed by the Bombay High Court in Surendra Mishra's case by ordering the Trial Court to decide the 340 application within one month. [Surendra Mishra vs State 2019 SCC On Line Bom ]
5. Supreme Court, in many cases and more particularly in the case of Perumal vs. Janki (2014)5SCC 377, had made it clear that if any person including the Police officer helps the Woman in lodging and proceeding in a false case including rape case then every such person is liable to be prosecuted for perjury and the Judge refusing to take action against such woman/person will be failing in his duty.
6. Failure of Judge to perform his duty in order to help such accused is made punishable under sec 218 of IPC[Anverkhan AIR 1921 Bom 115, BirajaProsad Rao Vs. Nagendra Nath, (1985) 1 Crimes 446 (Ori.), HurdutSurma, (1967) 8 WR (Cr.) 68]
7. There are several NGO’s like ‘Vastav Foundation’ who are working in the field through their volunteers for helping the Men who are victim of mischievous litigations initiated by wife(women) who are expert in misusing the provisions of laws.
Similarly some genuine Woman organizations are also working solely for helping the victim women.
8. However, the Indian Bar Association(IBA), ‘All India SC, ST and Minority Lawyers Association (AISCSTMLA) and NGO’s like Human Rights Security Council (HRSC) work for all (both Men and Women). These three organizations are working on the guiding principles from world's renowned thinkers, and which have been time and again reiterated by IBA’s National President Adv. Nilesh Ojha that;
i) Don’t see who is right. See what is right.
ii) ‘Injustice anywhere is threat to justice everywhere’ – Martin Luther King
iii) Evil unchecked means evil tolerated and evil tolerated is evil propogated.
iv) This world suffered a lot not because of violence of bad people but because silence of good people.
v) “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.” — Archbishop Desmond Tutu
9. Indian Bar Association(IBA) is continuously publishing articles, organizing seminars. These organizations have published many books written by IBA’s National President Adv. Nilesh Ojha since 2006. These books are given to many Judges from sub ordinate courts to Supreme Court of India, offices of Bar Associations and Bar Councils throughout India.
Pune: While there are several news/situations wherein the women have misused the laws intended to protect them, and in turn become the tormentors instead of victims, there is a news which is heartening as well as reassuring not only for victim men but for every innocent, that, the court directed its officer to initiate prosecution against the woman named Ruchika Mehar before Magistrate court at Wai Dist Satara u. sec 193,194,199,200,211 of IPC for filing false complaint against a businessman.
10. The Counsel for the victim businessmen, Adv. Nilesh Ojha who has also authored the country’s first book on ‘Applicability and use of Sec 340 of Cr. P. C.’ titled as ‘How to take action against false Affidavits & false cases: Law of Perjury ’ told reporters that;
“ This is a first case of its kind in the Indian judicial history where the prosecution against woman is ordered under sec 194 of IPC where life punishment is there that too at the threshold and applicant has not to face the trial as the Applicant was able to point out at the threshold that the charge of rape is false. So far as other conspirators/accused giving false statements are concerned that can be added afterwords by the order of Sessions Court and as per law laid down by the Supreme court in Jose Maria’s case AIR 2018 SC 140, Sanjeev Kumar Mittal’s case – 2011 (121) DRJ 328”
11. Earlier in 2015 the additional Sessions Judge of Fast Track Court at Delhi directed action against the Woman for false rape Charge after conclusion of the trial.The associate advocate Sh. Sadashiv Sanap told that such accused should be severely punished so as to send a strong message to the mischivious litigants.
The other associate advocates team working in the above case includes:- Adv. Ishwarlal Agarwal, Praveen Chawre, Gopal Karhale, Vijay Pamnani, Jayram Yadav, Dipali Ojha, Praveen Dethe, Prateek Jain, Abhishek Mishra, Shivam Mehra, Mangesh Dongre, Deepika Jaiswal, Poonam Rajbhar, Siddhi Dhamnaskar, Snehal Surve and others..
12. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
12.1. The version given by the 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.
12.9. 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. …”
13. FURTHER COURSE OF ACTION AFTER FILING OF COMPLAINT BY THE COURT OFFICER
13.1. The Magistrate/Court before whom the complaint is filed will issue process with non-baillable warrants of arrest against accused Ruchika Mehar because the offences are non baillable and having punishment for life imprisonment. [Arvindervi Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. – (1998) 6 SCC 352]
It is ruled as under;
“Section 340 of Cr. P. C. – Action under sec 193, 194, 211 and 218 IPC for filing false charge sheet against the innocent – Creating false evidence in the statement recorded during investigation- On the direction given by the Supreme Court the CBI submitted report and recommended action under sec 193, 194, 211 and 218 IPC – The SC accepted the report and directed CBI to file challan against the accused. – On the report by CBI the Designated Court took the cognizance and issued process with non-bailable warrant against the appellant who is Senior Inspector. In pursuance to said process the accused came to be arrested and confined in custody.
In the report submitted by C.B.I. following actions were recommended:-
(i) Harpreet Singh @ Lucky s/o Gurmit Singh Saini, r/o Village Bahadurpur, who is presently facing trial in case FIR No. 10/93 of PS Sadar, Ropar in the Designated Court, Nabha has been falsely implicated in the case.
(ii) SI Avindervir Singh, ASI Darsahan Singh, Inspector Balwant Singh and DSP Jaspal Singh are prima facie responsible for the false implication of Harpreet Singh @ Lucky in the aforesaid case and are liable for prosecution for offences under Sections 193, 194, 211 and 218 IPC.
(iii) The State Government of Punjab is to be requested for taking suitable action against Shri Sanjiv Gupta, DIG, Punjab Police for his lack of supervision."
In the final report the CBI had also suggested that the concerned Designated Court be directed to file a complaint as required by Section 195 Cr.P. C. for prosecuting the appellant and A.S.I. Darshan Singh, Inspector Balwant Singh and D.S.P. Jaspal Singh under Sections 193, 194,211 and 218 IPC. Allowing the appeal on 10.5.96, this Court directed that Harpreet Singh @ Lucky be released from jail forthwith, transferred the trial from the Designated Court at Nabha to the Designated Court at Chandigarh and directed the C.B.I. to file necessary challan in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, before trial court at Chandigarh. A consequential order was also passed by the Designated Court for the release of Harpreet Singh on 16.5.96.
13.2. The Magistrate at Wai court after receiving complaint from Asst. Suprintendant may order further investigation against other accused/conspirators.[ State of Goa Vs. Jose Maria AIR 2018 SC 140, Sanjeev Kumar Mittal vs The State – 2011 (121) DRJ 328, Godrej Boyce]
13.3. In Sanjeev Mittal vs State 2011 RCR (CRI) (7) 2111, it is ruled that;
“ 12.3. … the offence(s) may be a stand-alone or as a carefully devised scheme. It may be by a single individual or it may be in conspiracy with others. There may be conspirators, abettors and aiders or those who assisted, who are not before the Court, or even their identity is not known.
….
Often, the facts are such on which a private party cannot be expected to itself investigate, gather the evidence and place it before the Court. It needs a State agency exercising its statutory powers and with the State machinery at its command to investigate the matter, gather the evidence, and then place a report before the Court along with the evidence that they have been able to gather. .”
13.4. In Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. and another v. The Union of India 1992 CRI. L. J. 3752,it is ruled as under:
“Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), S.340- Direction for filing of complaint - It could be even against persons who could not then be identified - There may be cases where the offence is disclosed clearly but offender is not ascertained with certainty. Action is justified under S.340, though the place at which and the manner in which the offence was committed may have to be elicited by further investigation. (Paras 95 96)
14. LAW TO NOT TO GRANT BAIL TO SUCH ACCUSED AND CONDUCT THE TRIAL BY KEEPING THEM IN JAIL.
14.1. In Dilip @ Dinesh Shivabhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat2011 SCC OnLine Guj 7522, Arvindervi Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. – (1998) 6 SCC 352, Ashok Sarogi’s Case 2016 ALL MR (Cri) 3400, the law is settled that such accused should not be granted bail and case should be tried as under trial. It is ruled in Dilip @ Dinesh Shivabhai Patel as under;
“Bail- I. P. C. sec 420, 406, 114, 118, 465, 467, 468, 471 – False Claim in court Contents of written statement filed before civil court proves mens rea of the accused – Offences are serious – Bail rejected.
Accused submitted that the dispute is with regard to the suit land in respect of which learned Civil Judge has directed the parties to maintain status-quo.
I have perused Section 8 of the Evidence Act and I have also perused ingredients of said Section. I have also perused the contents of written reply filed before the Civil Court in which the applicants stated that they are not owners of that land and yet said land is sold out, so conduct also prima facie show that the applicants have committed serious offence. Even though it is argued that the contempt applications are pending, but that question cannot come for consideration of this bail application. It is required to consider whether prima facie case is made out or not and in result when it is established that the alleged offences are committed by the applicants….. I am also in agreement with the submission of the learned senior advocate Mr. S.V. Raju that there is a genuine reason to say that if the present applicants may be released on bail, then they will tamper with the evidence. It is a case of documentary evidence. Therefore, I am of the view that the bail application of the applicants is required to be dismissed. Hence, dismissed.
15. JUDGE HELPING TO GIVE BAIL TO ACCUSED IS ALSO LIABLE FOR ACTION UNDER PERJURY
15.1. In K. Rama Reddy MANU/AP/0393/1998, it is ruled as under;
“ Conspiracy between judges and advocates to give bail to an undeserving accused and to grant other beneficial orders - Action against Advocates and concerned Judges - Sections 195, 197, 340, 341 and 343 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973- Sections 120-B, 193, 466, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Accused A1 and A2 who are advocates, are legally bound to state the truth, but they intentionally gave false information in a judicial proceeding viz., bail application, knowing fully well that their statements are false and they thereby fabricated false evidence in a judicial proceeding. The 1-Addl. Sessions Judge who was in charge of the District and Sessions Court and a party to the conspiracy, made over the bail application to the II-Addl. Sessions Court - all the accused and Sri P. Thirupathi Reddy, the then II-Addl. Sessions Judge entered into a criminal conspiracy to do all sorts of illegal acts in order to get their bail application made over to the II-Addl. Sessions Court with a view to get favourable orders- - The then II-Addl. Sessions Judge and A3 (appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 385/97) helped the other accused by willfully and intentionally ignoring the false Cr.M.P.No. 1626/96.
The II-Addl. Sessions Judge, who is a party to the conspiracy, allowed the petition for amendment on 13-8-1996 and granted bail to A4 and A5. The II-Addl. Sessions Judge is being proceeded with departmentally and is now under suspension - The advocate and B.Prabhakar very well knew that amount of Rs.2,24,904-73 Ps. lying in the Court does not belong to his fake client and that they are not entitled to receive it. Yet, they fabricated false documents with the forged signatures of B.Gangaram and affixed the photo of B.Prabhakar on the affidavit to make the Court believe that the photo belongs to B.Gangaram and filed the fabricated and forged documents...."
The decision of a learned single Judge of Delhi High Court in Ranbir Singh v. State MANU/DE/0362/1990 is instructive. There also a complaint was made under Section 340 of the Code against an advocate regarding forging of Judicial record - I am satisfied that there has been proper application of mind by the Sessions Judge in each of these matters in making the orders and preferring the complaints under Section 340 of the Code.
Sessions Judge ordered that a complaint be filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimnagar under Section 340(1)(b) of the Code against the accused for the offences mentioned.
Some of the Advocates have resorted to certain types of malpractices to get their bail applications made over to any of the Additional District Courts of their choice.
The Modus Operandi is - the Advocate files a bail application falsely mentioning that the offence alleged against the accused is one under Section 307 I.P.C. After it was made over to any of the Additional District Courts, the figures '307' are altered to 302 in the bail application/s wherever the figures '307' occur.
The concerned Advocates, Clerks of the Addl. District Courts, Additional Public Prosecutors joined hands in this racket and the role of the two Addl. District Judges cannot be ruled out in this murky affair.
What is apparent from this report dated 30-10-1996 is that certain devious methods were being adopted in the Sessions Court at Karimnagar by certain advocates with the connivance of the staff of the I and II Additional Sessions Courts and the Additional Public Prosecutors attached to those courts, and that the two Additional Sessions Judges at the relevant time were also parties aware of those devious methods employed mostly in matters relating to bails - These devious methods polluted the streams of justice and necessitated urgent correctives and action in the interests of administration of justice. ”
16. FAILURE OF A JUDGE TO NOT TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST ACCUSED OF PERJURY OF MAKING FALSE CHARGE TO IMPLICATE INNOCENT MAKES THE JUDGE LIABLE FOR ACTION UNDER SEC 218,219 ETC OF IPC.
16.1. Supreme Court in many cases and more particularly in the case of Perumal vs. Janki (2014)5SCC 377, had made it clear that, anyone including police officer if helps the person/Woaman in prosecuting a false case including rape case to frame innocent then every such person is liable to be prosecuted for perjury and Judge refusing to take action will be failing in his duty. It was observed as under;
“Passing strictures against High Court and allowing appeal, Supreme Court observed as under;
Held, we regret to place on record that at every stage of this matter the inquiry was misdirected.
28. In the case on hand, when the appellant alleges that he had been prosecuted on the basis of a palpably false statement coupled with the further allegation in his complaint that the respondent did so for extraneous considerations, we are of the opinion that it is an appropriate case where the High Court ought to have exercised the jurisdiction under Section 195 Cr.P.C. The allegation such as the one made by the complainant against the respondent is not uncommon. As was pointed earlier by this Court in a different context “there is no rule of law that common sense should be put in cold storage”. Our Constitution is designed on the theory of checks and balances. A theory which is the product of the belief that all power corrupts - such belief is based on experience.
The abovementioned indisputable facts, in our opinion, prima facie may constitute an offence under section 211 I.P.C. The High Courts not only have the authority to exercise such jurisdiction but also an obligation to exercise such power in appropriate cases. - any interpretation which leads to a situation where a victim of crime is rendered remediless, has to be discarded. The power of superintendence like any other power impliedly carries an obligation to exercise powers in an appropriate case to maintain the majesty of the judicial process and the purity of the legal system. Such an obligation becomes more profound when these allegations of commission of offences pertain to public justice.”
16.2. In a landmark judgment in the case Raman Lal Vs. State 2001 CR. L. J. 800, the court ordered FIR against High Court Judge and SP and other police officer for falsely implicating an innocent for ulterior purposes. It was ruled as under;
“Accused are Additional High Court Judge, Suprintendant of Police Sanjeev Bhatt and others – The accused hatched conspiracy to falsely implicate a shop owner in a case under N.D.P.S. Act and when shop owner submitted to their demands he was discharged – Complaint u.s. 120-B, 195, 196, 342, 347, 357, 368, 388, 458, 482, I.P.c. and Sec. 17, 58 (1), (2) of NDPS Act – Held – there is no connection between official duty and offence – No sanction is required for prosecution – Registration of F.I.R. and investigation legal and proper.
Conspiracy – I.P.C. Sec. 120 (B) – Apex court made it clear that an inference of conspiracy has to be drawn on the basis of circumstantial evidence only because it becomes difficult to get direct evidence on such issue – The offence can only be proved largely from the inference drawn from acts or illegal ommission committed by them in furtherance of a common design – Once such a conspiracy is proved, act of one conspirator becomes the act of the others – A Co-conspirator who joins subsequently and commits overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy must also be held liable – Proceeding against accused cannot be quashed.
Where complainants allegations are of stinking magnitude and the authority which ought to have redressed it have closed its eyes and not even tried to find out the real offender and the clues for illegal arrest and harassment are not enquired then he can not be let at the mercy of such law enforcing agencies who adopted an entirely indifferent attitude – Legal maxim Necessiatas sub lege Non contineture Quia Qua Quad Alias Non Est Lictum Necessitas facit Lictum, Means necessity is not restrained by laws – Since what otherwise is not lawful necessity makes it lawful – Proceeding proper cannot be quashed. ”
16.3. Sec. 218 of IPC reads thus;
“218. Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture.—Whoever, being a public servant, and being as such public servant, charged with the preparation of any record or other writing, frames that record or writing in a manner which he knows to be incorrect, with intent to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, loss or injury to the public or to any person, or with intent thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or other charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
16.4. Sec. 219 of IPC reads thus;
219. Public servant in judicial proceeding corruptly making report, etc., contrary to law.—Whoever, being a public servant, corruptly or maliciously makes or pronounces in any stage of a judicial proceeding, any report, order, verdict, or decision which he knows to be contrary to law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
17. IMP CASE LAWS ON SEC 218 OF IPC:
17.1. Failure of Judge to perform his duty to help such accused is made punishable under sec 218 of IPC[Anverkhan AIR 1921 Bom 115, BirajaProsad Rao Vs. Nagendra Nath, (1985) 1 Crimes 446 (Ori.), HurdutSurma, (1967) 8 WR (Cr.) 68]
17.2. In a landmark judgment in the case of Anverkhan Mahamadkhan Vs. Emperor AIR 1921 Bom 115 it is ruled as under;
“I.P.C. 218 - The gist of the section is the stiffening of truth and the perversion of the course of justice in cases where an offence has been committed it is not necessary even to prove the intention to screen any particular person. It is sufficient that he know it to be likely that justice will not be executed and that someone will escape from punishment."
17.3. The section is concerned with bringing erring public servants to book for falsifying the public records in their charge. The essence of the offence under section 218 is intent to cause loss or injury to any public or person or thereby save any person from legal punishment or save any property from forfeiture or any other charge, BirajaProsad Rao Vs. Nagendra Nath, (1985) 1 Crimes 446 (Ori.)
17.4. The actual guilt or innocence of the alleged offender is immaterial if the accused believes him guilty and intends to screen him, HurdutSurma, (1967) 8 WR (Cr.) 68.
18. MISUSE OF LAW WHICH IS MADE FOR SAFEGUARDING THE RIGHTS OF A WOMAN
18.1. The Delhi Commission of Women (DCW) has come out with remarkably shocking statistics revealing that 53.2% of the rape cases registered with the police between April 2013 and July 2014 in Delhi were falsified. Furthermore, the report says that between April 2013 and July 2014, of the 2,753 complaints of rape, 1,464 cases were false. The Delhi Commission of Women further added that in many cases, the complainant was revealed to be prejudiced, and that revenge emerged to be the most common reason for filing a false accusation.
The above statistic shows that India is regressing instead of progressing.
18.2. The definition of feminism from equality has become fascism damaging the very purpose of justice delivery system. The fact that women are filing false rape cases and such groups or woman organizations coming forward to help such women who turn out to be the tormentors, and not the victims, and have actually been victimized, grossly trivializes the objective of achieving equality and mutual comprehension between the two genders. The statistic eventually delegitimizes the efforts of feminism altogether.
Previously, the Jaipur police busted an extortion racket by a woman giving threats of rape complaint to extort money.
18.3. Delhi Court Additional Sessions Judge Virender Bhat observed;
“ False rape cases makes the crime graph shoot up, play havoc with the crime statistics and tend to trivialise the offence of rape and, "no sooner that the news of a person having been accused of rape spreads in the society, he is looked down upon by all and sundry"
“ While the act of rape causes intense emotional distress and immense humiliation to the victim, at the same time one cannot lose sight of the fact that false implication in a rape case causes equal humiliation, disgrace and mental agony to the accused,
"He (rape accused) as well as his family is ostracised from the mainstream. He is humiliated and ridiculed everywhere. Even his honourable acquittal by the court is not taken note of and does little to salvage his lost honour and dignity. He has to live with the trauma of having been a rape accused throughout his life,"
18.4. The court made the remarks while directing lodging of a complaint against a woman who had registered a false rape case against a Delhi businessman at the behest of someone who wanted to settle scores with him.
"This court would be failing in its duty if appropriate proceedings are not initiated against the prosecutrix (woman) for giving false evidence against the accused," it said.
The court acquitted the businessman and said, "based upon the evidence led by the parties, it is manifest that the prosecutrix has lodged a false complaint of rape against the accused at the behest of somebody else, who wanted to settle scores with the accused and used prosecutrix as a pawn."
Court said, "this case is a classic example of how men are being falsely implicated in rape cases to settle personal scores with them. This is a perfect illustration of total misuse of rape laws."
"Time has come when the courts should deal firmly with the women filing false complaints of rape. These women, who turn out to be tormentors and not the victims, should be punished under the appropriate provisions of law"
Credits: https://advvivekramteke.blogspot.com/
