Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
In the month of August 2020 the petitioner had lodged a complaint with the Chamarajpet P.S. for having lost her laptop. The Respondent who was investigating the matter collected the phone number of the petitioner and in the pretext of investigating the case, started calling and messaging the petitioner and also tried to make physical contact and also asked the petitioner to marry him .After having going out together a brief amount of times, respondent proposed to get her married at Dharmastala.
Both of them went to Dharmastala to get married with the arrangement being made by the
Petitioner they reached Dharmastala and he booked a room at Gangothri and at that time, respondent tired to have sexual intercourse without the petitioners consent and committed rape on her. The respondent later revealed that he was already married to another women after the muhurtham was fixed.
The petitioner then decided to lodge a complaint at Dharmastala P.S., No complaint was registered even though a complaint was made by her.
The parents of the respondent with the help of Charamarajapet PSI threatened the petitioner to withdraw the complaint and took her to Gayathri Lodge along with the police constable. The pepitioner was assaulted and abused took her out of the lodge by informing public that she is a prostitute and defamed the name of the petitioner in the eye of the public , then the petitionerwas forcefully put
in the car and dropped her to her mother's house at Bengaluru .Then she went andtook treatment at KIMS Hospital.The petitioner sent registered complaint to the higher authorities i.e., IGP Mangaluru,Chief Minister, Home Minister, State Police Authority and DGP Head Quarters Bengaluruexplaining the harassment meted out to her by the police at Dharmastala
The petitioner submits that she was subjected to character assassination, torture and agonywhich should not happen to anybody else. Hence, she approached the Court seeking cancellation of the bail granted to respondent and also to transfer the case to COD for fair investigation as she is not expecting any fair investigation in the hands of a person, who has been indulged in assaulting her and causing life threa
The respondent contended that the petitioner is having the habit of filing the complaint against others. In the year 2015, the case has been registered against Assistant Commissioner of Police and other persons for the offence punishable under Sections 506 and 504 of IPC. The report is also clear that the laptop, which is alleged to have been lost is 12 years old. The petitioner demanded a ransom from respondent and hence, a complaint was lodged against the petitioner by respondent and no case is madeout to cancel the anticipatory bail granted in his favour.
As per the discussion the order was passed by allowing the writ petition, The anticipatory bail granted in favour of respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 376 of IPC is hereby quashed and directed the Investigating Officer is to take the accused into custody and produce him before the concerned jurisdictional Court. The District Superintendent of Police is directed to initiate action against the said police personnel for the lapse on their part as observed.
86540
103860
630
114
59824