Extortion and blackmail for false prosecution by lady ex-associate
Debabrata Bhattacharya
(Querist) 04 September 2012
This query is : Resolved
Dear Sir,
I had a professional associate who is a lady for my business of event management at Delhi. My Company is at Kolkata. The lady had got terminated in July 2010 for misappropriation of fund and non-diclosure of clietale details. After termination , she joined hands with my two erstwhile directors who had been removed on same grounds and started blackmailing and threatening me and my entire family members collecting all contact details and aided and abetted by the ex-two directors . Lastly she ended up on filing an false FIR against me and my wife and my father u/s 376/506 at Delhi. There had been several compliants earlier at different P.S. including crime branch , C.P. office, Jt.Cp office- but nothing got affected .My wife works in a multinational and my father is a 76 years old retired technocrat. Police understands everything but not doing/ done anything closing my earlier complaints as "monetary dispute" between parties.Now situation is I can go jail anyday without any offence rather tolerating the lady's nuisance since last 1 and half years. In the FIR , the lady has made a series of stories which has nothing to relate with facts and there was not a single line written against my wife or my father! Please advise what to do. 40 families are depending on me at Kolkata. I have at least 10 acknowledgements from C.P. Delhi against my complaints against her shippish and nasty phone calls and extorting mails. Kolkata police DD & Jt. C.P.( Crime) verified my complaints of extortion to be "right" but due to jurisdictional reasons referred the case to Delhi, but Delhi Police is not giving congizance to such letters due to reasons whatsoever. Please advise.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 04 September 2012
move high court for quashing since in the Fir no case is amde out against your wife and father .
Debabrata Bhattacharya
(Querist) 06 September 2012
Thanks for you Suggestions Sir. But no Judge at High Court shall quash the matter at the Investigation stage , until challan is filed.Meanwhile, anytime arrest may take place. What to do? police is taking time and indirectly creating pressure and silent threat for arrest.
Debabrata Bhattacharya
(Querist) 06 September 2012
I have a suggestion that if I go for quashing , only I can take stay on the proceedings against the investigation till quashing hearing and decisions are pending. But that cannot be a solution . D.P.Anti extortion Cell ( Crime Branch), Delhi Commission for Women, Joint C.P.(SE & SW)- none are acting on my series of complaints. just her call records and e-mails are enough to pull out the facts. But... Moreover I had sent all the copies of affidavit she signed accepting all her crimes, no one is acting properly. Only the word I am hearing that She is a 'lady' and her complaint is enough, as if my wife is not a lady and my 76 years old innocent father who is a cardiac patient is a criminal- though none of them are anyway related to my business. Should I directly go to C.P.Delhi Police at PHQ?Highly confused and disturbed.Kolkata Police say it is a Delhi police matter and no further complaint can be taken when complaints are already lodged at Delhi on the same subject.
Debabrata Bhattacharya
(Querist) 06 September 2012
Sir there is an update. Against my RTI application, Delhi Police replied that my complaint at C.R.park is "closed" by P.S. as "no cognizance". Excellent!!!
Now What next? That false complaint of the lady as counterblast is cognizable us/ 376/506 but my genuine complaint is dumped!Nothing investigated against 10 annexures and my specific complaints? Kolkata police , I find is much better now, or since I am from Kolkata and cannot persue the case "properly"?
Mera Bharat Mahan!
ajay sethi
(Expert) 06 September 2012
you have stated FIR has been filed against your wife and father and that there are no allegations against your wife and father .
if no prima facie case is made out and that you apprehend arrest may take place apply for anticpatory bail
Debabrata Bhattacharya
(Querist) 06 September 2012
Exactly so Sir. But do you really think that Anticipatory Bail can be obtained under such serious sections? I have talked with some IPS officers who had experience of working at Delhi , they said "No", not at least at sessions court level. Then?can I approach Delhi High Court directly without having my application being rejected at Sessions court? In kolkata, it is not as per usual practice.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 06 September 2012
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dharminder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 26 April, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No.M-19237 of 2011(O&M)
Date of Decision: April 26, 2012.
Dharminder Singh
...... PETITIONER(s)
Versus
State of Punjab
...... RESPONDENT (s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Simsi Dhir Malhotra, D.A.G., Punjab. *****
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.75 dated 24.05.2011 under Sections 336, 506, 323, 148 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (offences under Sections 325, 452 and 307 of IPC and 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959 were added later on), registered at Police Station Sadar Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran dismissing anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while issuing notice of motion on 23.06.2011 passed the following order:- CRM No.M-19237 of 2011. 2 "This petition is under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for granting anticipatory bail in case in FIR No.75 dated 24.05.2011 under Sections 336, 506, 323, 148 and 149 IPC later on Sections 325 and 452 IPC and 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Sadar,Tarn Taran, District Tarn Tar n, a
Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order dated 08.6.2011 wherein it has been observed that offence under Section 452 IPC is not disclosed from the contents of the FIR and anticipatory bail has been denied to the petitioner. Recovery has been effected. All other offences are bailable. Notice of motion for 15.7.2011.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and in the event of the arrest of petitioner, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/- to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the following conditions:-
i. that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by Police Officer as and when required; ii. that the person shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; iii. that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court."
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 23.06.2011.
It has also been stated by learned counsel for the State on the instruction from ASI Nirmal Singh that petitioner has joined the investigation and that he is no more required for any custodial interrogation. CRM No.M-19237 of 2011. 3 There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of petitioner Dharminder Singh is accepted and order dated 23.06.2011 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioner is, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
The present petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA )
April 26, 2012. JUDGE Sachin M.
Debabrata Bhattacharya
(Querist) 06 September 2012
Thnks Sir. I have also seen this order, but in that case the offences are bailable. 376 was not there.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 06 September 2012
Gauhati High Court
Mani Kumar Subba vs The State Of Assam on 7 October, 2010
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI
Court Of Assam,Nagaland,Meghalaya,Manipur,Tripura,Mizoram and A
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI
CASE NO Bail Appln. 4412 of 2010
District : Kamrup
Category : 10267 (Anticipatory bail Application Under Section 438 Cr.
1 MANI KUMAR SUBBA
S/O LT. DHAN
BAHADUR SUBBA
R/O VILL- HARMOTI,
DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM.
Petitioner
Versus
1 THE STATE OF ASSAM
Respondent
!1. B C DAS
2. P UPADHYAY
3. T BORA
4. D SARMAH
Petition's Advocates
^1. PP, ASSAM
2. A M BORA
Respondent's Advocates
Summary Of Case And Prayer In Brief
Coram
BEFORE
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P. K. MUSAHARY
DATE OF ORDER:07/10/2010
:JUDGEMENT
ORDER
Heard Mr. B. C. Das, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. P. Upadhyay, learned counsel., appearing on behalf of accused petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Munir, learned Addl. P.P., appearing on behalf of respondent State of Assam and Mr. A. M. Borah, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of informant victim woman.
2.Apprehending arrest in connection with Chandmari P. S. Case No. 253/2010 registered under Section 376 I.P.C. based on a written FIR dated 13.07.2010 lodged by one Smti. Shikha Sharma, the present accused petitioner has moved this bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for releasing him on pre-arrest bail.
3.This is the second bail application filed by the present accused petitioner Sri Mani Kumar Subba on what is called fresh grounds after the first bail application was rejected by this court vide order dated 28.07.2010 in B.A. No. 3265/2010 in connection with the aforesaid police case.
4.In the aforesaid FIR, it has been alleged that the accused petitioner, abovenamed, forcefully committed rape on the informant victim woman on 13.07.2010 at about 9 o'clock when she visited his house on his call over phone to discuss about some domestic matter. The informant victim woman made statements before the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and also on oath, before the learned SDJM(S)-II, Kamrup, under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on 14.07.2010, in that regard. The said informant victim woman was medically examined by the Doctor and her under garments were also sent for FSL examination. On perusal of medical report and the connected CD, this court rejected the first bail application, as stated above.
5.In the instant bail application, as of new grounds , it is stated by the accused petitioner that a TV News Channel namely News Live carried out a sting operation through one Sri Haren Sarma, on 07.09.2010, at a restaurant at Bhangagarh, Guwahati, preceded by a telephonic conversation between them. The said conversation was telecast by the aforesaid News Channel on 09.09.2010 at 7 P.M. under the caption Sting Operation. In the said sting operation, the informant victim woman during her conversation, admitted acceptance of Rs. 50,000/- as advance money, from one Member of Parliament(M.P.) and two Members of Legislative Assembly (MLA), for lodging the rape case and she also disclosed that they promised to pay further amount of Rs. 6 Crores for publicity against the accused petitioner. The husband of the informant victim woman was also present at the time of the said sting operation. The informant victim woman allegedly stated before Haren Sarma that she would withdraw the rape case if accused petitioner Sri Mani Kumar Subba pays her Rs. 3 Crores otherwise she would continue with the said rape case and would do whatsoever is directed by those persons who had already paid her advance money. The informant victim woman gave her various Bank Accounts to Sri Haren Sarma to deposit the money in her Bank Accounts. After recording the conversation in the mobile phone and in video camera, a CD was prepared and the same was handed over to Chandmari Police Station on 08.09.2010 alongwith formal application for doing the needful. On the basis of the aforesaid development, the Personal Assistant(in short 'PA') to accused Mani Kumar Subba, filed a written FIR on 11.09 .2010 against the informant victim woman and her husband and the same was registered as Chandmari P.S. Case No. 354/2010 under Sections 120B/384/211/511 of I.P.C .(Annexure 3 to the bail application).
6.A written counter FIR was also lodged by the informant victim woman on 10.09.2010 against Sri Haren Sarma, which has been registered as Dispur P.S. Case No. 1174/2010 under Sections 120B/ 341/354/ 506/294/34 of IPC .In the said FIR, the informant victim woman, amongst others, stated that she met Sri Haren Sarma at Big Bazar and he made her talk to accused Sri Mani Kumar Subba on his mobile phone. According to the informant victim woman , accused Mani Kumar Subba wept while talking to her over the mobile phone and he asked her to accept an amount of Rs. 1 Crore from him and withdraw the case alleging commission of rape against him but she demanded Rs. 3 Crores through Sri Haren Sarma. The informant victim woman was told by Sri Haren Sarma that accused Sri Mani Kumar Subba would come by Helicopter and make the payment himself and then, she agreed to give her Bank Account Nos . to accused Sri Mani Kumar Subba. Accordingly, she agreed to accept the amount of Rs. 3 Crores because if the same is deposited in her Bank Accounts, accused Mani Kumar Subba could be easily traced out. In the said FIR, it is also stated that Sri Haren Sarma recorded the whole proceeding by a secret camera which was beyond her knowledge and imagination. The informant victim woman admitted that she carried a spy camera but since she did not know how to operate it, she could not record anything . The informant victim woman further stated in her FIR that Sri Haren Sarma is a simple man and as such, she did not want to implicate him in this case. She further stated that she only wanted to trap accused Sri Mani Kumar Subba but she was surprised to know that Sri Haren Sarma had actually carried out a sting operation against her secretly in collusion with accused Sri Mani Kumar Subba. A copy of this FIR has been appended as Annexure-1 to Criminal Misc. Case No. 585/2010 which was filed by the informant objecting the present bail petition.
7.In the meantime, the informant victim woman and her husband filed a bail application, before this court, praying for grant of pre-arrest bail in connection with Chandmari P.S. Case No. 354/2010 under Sections 120B/384/211/511 of I.P.C. dated 11.09.2010 which was registered on the basis of a written FIR filed by one Sri Tulsi Prasad Sarma, P.A. to accused Sri Mani Kumar Subba. The said bail application has been registered as B.A. No. 4561/2010 which was also listed in the Daily Cause List dated 05.10.2010 at Serial No. 78.
8.The other new ground according to accused petitioner Sri Mani Kumar Subba is that he showed the medical report on genital examination of the informant victim woman to Dr. P. C. Sarma, D.F.M., M.D., LL.B., former Professor and Head of Forensic Medicine Department, GMCH, who examined the same and opined that there was no sign of sexual intercourse on the person of informant Smti. Shikha Sharma.
9.At this stage, I do not like to make any observation or comment on the aforesaid new grounds but I would like to refer to certain averments made by the accused petitioner in the instant bail application. The accused petitioner Sri Mani Kumar Subba notably stated that he is a heart patient and had undergone Open Heart By Pass Surgery and since then, he has not been keeping good health. On the other hand, the informant victim woman is a lady of stronger physique with tall features in comparison to accused petitioner's weak physique and frail features. According to her statement, she was smartly clad in modern sleek pant and coloured top at the time when she visited the house of accused petitioner and was allegedly forcibly ravished by him. Equally smartly attired in 'churidar', she presented herself before the Chandmari Police Station with the same piece of Bra and Panty put on at the time of ravishment, lodged a written FIR and got the said Bra and Panty seized by the police.
10.It may be noticed that the sleek pant and coloured top were not produced by her before the police for examination if they were found torn due to alleged use of force by accused Sri Mani Kumar Subba in committing rape on her.
11.On perusal of CD, it is found that the I.O. has already recorded the statements of all the persons who were present in the residence of present accused petitioner at the time of alleged occurrence. The statement of accused Sri Mani Kumar Subba was also recorded on 21.07.2010. The medical report in connection with the victim woman has been obtained by police and a copy of the same is available in the CD. Both the victim woman and her husband were examined on three occasions. The CDs on sting operation prepared by Sri Haren Sarma are in the custody of police. It appears that the I.O. has made considerable progress in investigation of the matter and he is in a position either to submit the charge-sheet or return the case in F.R. on the basis of evidence on record in accordance with law.
12.The medical report contains opinion of the Doctor who examined the victim woman, which are, as under :
1.Her age is above 25(twenty five) years. However for exact age estimation radiological examination is essential.
2.Evidence of recent sexual intercourse not detected on her.
3.Evidence of injury not detected on her person.
13. The above are the opinion of the concerned Doctor. The court is not required to examine nor is it competent to examine as to the correctness of the said opinion but it is enough for the court to take a prima-facie view that the victim woman was not raped. It can be testified/proved only by examining and cross-examining the Doctor concerned who examined the victim woman at the time of trial. This court can, however, dispose of the instant bail application on consideration of the said medical report.
14. As per the result of the laboratory evidence, as mentioned in the medical report, no spermatozoa and gonouicei was found in glass slide smear. In the genital examination, it is stated in the report that vagina was found roomy rugosity decreated. This court is also not to examine and make any comment like an expert person/authority and the same should be left for proof at the time of trial. The court is not required to sit and consider like an expert body to critically analyze the medical report in question at this stage for granting or refusing the bail. The court while granting anticipatory bail to an accused is to consider certain factors like - (i) nature of gravity or seriousness of accusation, (ii) antecedents of the applicant, (iii) likely object of accusation to humiliate or malign the reputation of the applicant by having him arrested, and (iv) chance of fleeing from justice. I may refer to State of Maharashtra -vs- Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain & Ors., reported in (2008) 1 SCC 213. That was a case where a minor girl was driven to flesh trade by the accused, police officers , politicians and businessmen and compared to the said case, the gravity and seriousness of accusation of committing rape of a lady of 25 years of age, can be considered as less serious offence than the ones mentioned in the said case. There is no doubt that the accused petitioner returned as a Member of Parliament (MP) at least for two terms and is a member of Indian National Congress Party ('INC' in short). In the instant case, since accused Sri Mani Kumar Subba is having his permanent residence at Guwahati, Assam, as such, it cannot be said that he would flee from justice or jump the bail. What is more evident from the CD is that the informant herself is also an active member of the INC party and she was allegedly set-up by an M.P. and two MLAs of the same party to avenge their political rivalry/grudge. The object of accusation against the accused petitioner is not unlikely to humiliate or malign his reputation by having him arrested by the police.
15. Taking into consideration all these aspects, I am of the considered view that accused Sri Mani Kumar Subba is entitled to enjoy the privilege of anticipatory bail. But the question is whether a blanket order of anticipatory bail could be granted to him. Law is already settled in this regard. In Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh -vs- State of Maharashtra, reported in (1996) 1 SCC 667, it is held that anticipatory bail orders should be of a limited duration only and ordinarily, on the expiry of that duration or extended duration, the court granting anticipatory bail should leave it to the regular court to deal with the matter on an appreciation of evidence placed before it after the investigation has made progress or the charge-sheet is submitted. The same law has been affirmed in Sunita Devi -vs- State of Bihar & Anr., reported in (2005) 1 SCC 608.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion based on the rulings of the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, I direct that accused Sri Mani Kumar Subba, in the event of his arrest in connection with Chandmari P.S. Case No. 253/2010 under Section 376 I.P.C., shall be enlarged on bail for a limited period of 3(three) months from today on his execution of a bail bond of Rs. 30,000/- with 2(two) local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of investigating authority on condition that he shall appear-in-person before the I.O. concerned within a period of 7(seven) days from today in connection with the above mentioned case and as & when required and he shall also comply with other conditions as laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 . After expiry of stipulated 3(three) months period from today, the accused petitioner may approach the learned trial court concerned for grant of regular bail, if so advised.
17. With the above directions, this bail application stands disposed of.
