Blatantly false & Malicious Rape case on MAN NOT even in INDIA ! Case closed & criminal CrPc 195 on fakerape woman

Full credits to Assistant Police Inspector Mr A D Kamble of Maharashtra Police & Judge Hon Mr V N Girwalkar for closing a blatantly #falsegangrape #falserape case filed by a female and for initiating proceedings u/s 195 CrPC against her hopefully to land her JAIL FOR such a blatantly FALSE case

WAI - MAHARASHTRA Reviews, Tourist Places, Tourist Destinations, Tourist  Information, WAI - MAHARASHTRA Information, India
  • Gist
  • Woman file False rape claiming she was GANG RAPED by two and filimed by a third in a car when she went to meet them for a JOB. It turns out the neither main accused male was in India, NOR his accomplice even in the spot, NOR that car which was given as kidnap and rape vehicle even owned by the accused on date of incident
  • Magistrate closes cases and orders initiation of criminal case against false rape filing woman

CRI. M. A. NO. 106/2020.
Manish v/s. The State of Maharashtra & ors.
CNR No. MHST16­000888­2020.Exh. 01.


BELOW EXH. 01 IN CRI. M. A. NO. 106/2020.(In continuation of Order dated 22.12.2020 passed at Exh.01, this order is passed)

1.This is an application for holding preliminary inquiry under Section 340 read with Section 195 (1)(b)(i) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in order to launch the complaint against respondent no. 2 to 6 under Section 199,200, 203, 205, 209 and 211 of Indian Penal Code.

2.For the purpose of making preliminary inquiry about allegations made in this application, this Court passed an order below Exh. 1 on 22.12.2020 and thereby called the original record and proceedings of B summary report, decidedly this Court on 15.12.2020.

3.Before further discussion, it is necessary to make mention here that in the case of Union of India and othersv/s. Haresh Milani 2017(4) Mh.L.J.441, Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that, it is not necessary to hear the other side while making preliminary inquiry under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, in view of this authority,I have not issued notice to any of the respondents.

4.For the purpose of preliminary inquiry, I have read entire original record of the B summary report filed by the investigating officer in Crime No. 08/2020 under Section376(d), 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code registered at Wai police station. I have also readoriginal record of protest petition which was filed by informant against B summary report. It would be apt tomention here that this Court by its common order dated15.12.2020 has accepted B summary report and rejected theprotest petition.

5.Informant had lodged First Information report bearing No. 08/2020 (in short FIR) on dated 18.01.2020 at Wai police station and stated that present applicant and one Bhisham Parwani committed rape on her person 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 bearing No MH­12­JU­9778. It is further alleged that, while committing rape by present applicant and his friend Bhisham Parwani, accused No. 3 Ravindra Waghmare had taken photo of alleged incident from his cell phone. On the basis of FIR lodged by informant, the Crime No. 08/2020 came to be registered at Wai police station under Section 376(d), 323, 504, 506 read with Section34 of Indian Penal Code.

6.Assistant Police Inspector, A. D. Kamble has carried out the investigation of the said crime. During investigation, he prepared spot panchnama, recorded statement of witnesses, got recorded statement of informant under Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wai. During investigation, he collected Call Details Report (in Short CDRs) of the mobile phone of informant, present applicant and Bhisham Parwani. During investigation, it was revealed that the present applicant was in foreign country on the date of alleged incident. Therefore, he collected the report from Foreign Regional Registration Officer, Mumbai and Report of Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi. As per the said reports, investigating officercame to a conclusion, that on the date of alleged incident,present applicant was not in India. During investigation, itwas revealed to I.O., that on the date of alleged incident, Bhisham Parwani was also not present at a place of alleged incident. Rather, he was present at Pune. It further revealed toI.O., that the vehicle bearing No. MH­12­JU­9778 was sold out by the present applicant to one Sandip Thorave on08.09.2018. Therefore, I.O. had collected the R.C. book of the said vehicle and also recorded statement of Chamandeep singh Bombaywale under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter come the to conclusion that on the date of alleged incident, said vehicle was not in possession of present applicant as well as Bhisham Parwani. On the basis of material collected in investigation, I.O. come to a conclusion that FIR lodged by informant is false and maliciously false and therefore, he has filed B summary report in Court.

7.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. She also raised some other ground sin protest petition such as police have not mentioned date of alleged incident in FIR which was stated by her at the time of lodging of FIR. She alleged that during investigation, I.O., hasn’t conducted DNA test of present applicant and BhishamParwani.. She alleged that I. O. has not made any investigation about mobile phone of accused No. 3 Ravindra Waghmare by which he had taken photograph of alleged incident. She alleged that I.O. has not made any investigation about WhatsApp calls and messages of the mobile phone of present applicant. She further alleged that, in collusion with present applicant and Bhisham Parwani, the I.O. has submitted false B summary report by conducting one sided investigation.

8.This Court has accepted the B summary report on the following main grounds:

­a On the basis of report of Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India New Delhi and on the basis of report of the office of Foreign Regional Registration Officer, Mumbai, it reveals that on the date of alleged incident, present applicant was in abroad.

b On the basis of CDR of the mobile phone of present applicant as well as Bhisham Parwani, it reveals that they were not present at the alleged spot of incident on the date and time of alleged incident.

c On the basis of R.C. book of vehicle bearing No. MH­12­JU­9778 and in view of statement of witness Chamandeep singh Bombaywale, it reveals that on the date of alleged incident present applicant was not owner and possessor of the said vehicle and the said vehicle was present in front of Gurudwara, Nanded.

9.On the basis of above mentioned grounds and on perusal of entire record of B summary report, I came to the conclusion that during investigation of above said crime, I.O. has touched all material aspects of investigation of this Crime and therefore, I have accepted the B summary report.

10.I have accepted B summary report filed by I.O., in Crime No., 08/2020 registered at Wai police station. 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, in-spite 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)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She has prima facie committed aforesaid offences in relation to B summary proceeding before this Court. It is necessary to make mention here that there is no cogent and convincing material to proceed against respondents No. 3 to 6 for the offences mentioned above.

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 and211 of the Indian Penal Code as per Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As per Section 195(1)(b)(i)of Code of Criminal Procedure, it is required to authorise 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 :­

:: O R D E R ::

  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)(i) 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.

4.The proceeding is dropped against respondent No.3 to 6.

Date :­ 24.12.2020.
(V. N. Girwalkar)
Place:­ Wai.
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wai.


“ I certify that this Judgment / Order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Judgment / Order.”

Order directly dictated on : 24.12.2020.
Order checked and signed on : 24.12.2020.
Uploaded by : A. M. Agawane (Stenographer)
Uploaded on : 24.12.2020.

Arrest 80 year old in laws as they are sarcastic !! I’ve lived 10 DAYS with in laws, so Ablaa already !!

Infections And Incarceration: Why Jails And Prisons Need To Prepare For  COVID-19 Now

Notes : A wife has filed criminal cases and tried to arrest her 80 year old father in law and 75 year old mother in law claiming that they spoke sarcastically to her and did NOT allow her to touch the fridge !!! She has also tried to rope in other case against the elder couple !!!!

This woman actually married her school friend (meaning known bakra) !! Husband lives / works in Dubai and gifted her ONLY 15 kg dry fruits !!!!

Thankfully court allowed anticipatory bail for parents but their BANK ACCOUNTS are frozen !!

News headline : Court: In-laws’ daily taunts part of married life |

Mumbai News – Times of India

Rebecca Samervel | TNN |

Updated: Dec 31, 2020, 10:15 IST

MUMBAI: Observing that “talking sarcastically and taunting by in-laws is part of the wear and tear of married life” that every family witnesses, a sessions court recently granted anticipatory bail to a Malabar Hill couple, aged 80 and 75, who were accused of ill treatment by their estranged daughter-in-law, reports Rebecca Samervel .

The court also refuted the woman’s arguments that their plea should be rejected on the grounds that her in-laws were on the list put together by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists of people who had offshore entities. The court said, “There may be a probe pending under ICIJ, which has no concern while deciding the application.”

Woman’s allegations against her in-laws ‘general in nature’: Court

Observing that that this was an independent crime, the court said, “It is not shown if any crime is registered against the applicants for alleged involvement. So at this juncture, there is no need to get impressed by the proceedings.”

The 30-year-old woman got married to her now Dubai-based school friend in 2018. She claimed that it was only a few days before the wedding, while she was preparing documents to get the marriage registered, that her family realised that her husband was actually the biological child of the domestic help and was adopted and raised by her purported in-laws.

The woman alleged, among other things, that while her inlaws did not gift her anything at the wedding, her parents gave her diamond and gold jewellery worth Rs 1.5 crore. She claimed that she was not allowed to touch the fridge, was given stale food and made to sleep in the living room. She added she was not allowed to go to her mother’s home. The woman said that every time she complained to her husband, he would sarcastically ask her to obey his parents. According to her, while returning from Dubai, her husband gave her dry fruits weighing 15 kg. The woman said that when she returned to her in-laws’ home to deliver the dry fruits, her mother-in-law weighed the package before accepting it. The prosecution added that the woman’s in-laws and husband were in custody of her jewellery.

However, the advocate for the in-laws submitted that the woman was aware of her husband’s adoption and that she had lived with her in-laws for only about 10 days after the wedding. The defence also said both families had borne the wedding expenses equally. The advocate also claimed that the accused were unaware of the FIR and only got to know of it after their accounts were frozen. They denied having the jewellery.

The court called the woman’s allegations “general in nature.” Special judge Madhuri A Baraliya said, “Talking sarcastically and taunting to the first informant (daughter-inlaw) by the in-laws is the wear and tear of the married life, which every family witnesses. For those allegations the custody of the applicants who are old aged 80 years and 75 years respectively, is not required with the police.” While granting the plea for pre-arrest bail, the court directed them to submit passports with police as the woman apprehended they would flee to Dubai. The court said as far as recovery of her ornaments went, the probe agency had already frozen their accounts.

Talking sarcastically to… and taunting the daughter-in-law by the in-laws is the wear and tear of married life, which every family witnesses – Spl judge Madhuri A Baraliya

Jailed for ‘murdering’ his wife, Odisha man hunts her down after seven years, finds her living with lover ! New Indian Express

In her statement, Itishree said she had an affair with Rajiv before her marriage.
Suspecting that his wife may have eloped with someone, he visited many places in search of her.

By Express News Service

KENDRAPARA: Abhaya Sutar of Chaulia village in Patkura was charged with murdering his wife seven years back. He even spent a month in jail for the alleged crime while all his claims of innocence fell on deaf ears.

On Monday, he was proved not guilty after police nabbed his ‘dead’ wife and her lover from Pipili in Puri district. Abhaya married Itishree Moharana of Samagola village on February 7, 2013.

He claimed that Abhay dumped Itishree’s body somewhere after killing her.

Acting on the complaint, police arrested Abhaya and sent him to jail. After languishing in jail for around a month, he was released on bail. After his release from prison, Abhaya decided to devote all his time to trace Itishree and prove his innocence.

Suspecting that his wife may have eloped with someone, he visited many places in search of her.

Finally, he tracked Itishree at Pipili where she was living with her lover. On getting information from Abhaya, police rushed to Pipili and detained Itishree and one Rajiv Lochan Moharana.

Both were produced in the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM) at Kendrapara on Monday where their statements were recorded under Section 164 of CrPC.

In her statement, Itishree said she had an affair with Rajiv before her marriage.

However, her parents were against their relationship and forced her to marry Abhaya. After two months of marriage, she fled her in-laws’ house in the night and eloped with Rajiv. Both fled to Gujarat and stayed there for seven years. Itishree also gave birth to a son and a daughter.

Recently, they returned to Odisha. Patkura IIC Sujit Pradhan said Rajiv is earning his livelihood by driving an auto-rickshaw in Bhubaneswar. The family are now residing in Pipili.

Abhaya said, “When police failed to locate Itishree, I decided to take matters into my own hands. In these seven years, I have visited many places to track her down. Now that I have proved my innocence, I am a satisfied man.”

India 2020 : Fake Rape filed Aug 2020, withdrawn compromised by Dec 2020 ! Delhi HC Quash Order

Notes : A Woman files a #Rape complaint which was converted to FIR No. 381/2020 dated 10.08.2020, at Police Station – Kapashera, New Delhi. and accused booked under ipc376 etc. She appears in person at Delhi High court on December 4th 2020 and claims that was a FALSE complaint Filed after an altercation !!! Just as simple as that !!! Court accepts her unconditional apology and quashes case as it is COMPROMISED between parties !! Pertinent to note that the accused is a MBA and is trying to join Indian civil services !!!

Delhi High Court

Lalit Kumar Vats vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 4 December, 2020

Date of decision :04.12.2020
CRL.M.C. 2384/2020
LALIT KUMAR VATS ….. Petitioner
Through : Mr. Roshan Santhalia and Mr. Sholab Arora, Advs.


STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ….. Respondents
Through Mr. Izhar Ahmad, APP for State

W/SI Chandra Kanta, PS Kapashera Prosecutrix in person




Physical hearings at Delhi High Court, subordinate courts likely to resume  from September 1

Crl. M.A. 16804/2020 (Exemption)

  1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
  2. Application is disposed of.
  3. Vide the present petition, petitioner seeks direction thereby for quashing of FIR No. 381/2020 dated 10.08.2020, for the offence punishable under Sections 376 IPC registered at Police Station – Kapashera, New Delhi and all other proceedings arising therefrom.
  4. Notice issued.
  5. Notice is accepted by learned APP for State and by the respondent no.2 and with the consent of counsel for parties, the present petition is taken up for final disposal.
  6. The present petition is filed on the ground that matter has been compromised between petitioner and the prosecutrix.
  7. The Prosecutrix is personally present in Court and has been identified by W/SI Chandra Kanta/IO of the case. She states that FIR was lodged out of anger reason being she and petitioner had an altercation on 09.08.2020. To this effect, she has not only filed affidavit but she also sought apology from this Court.
  8. Since prosecutrix has made wrong statement which culminated into the present FIR, therefore, she is liable to be prosecuted under the law, however, she seeks unconditional apology and submits that she is a married woman having two children and her matrimonial life will be destroyed if the present case is sent for trial.
  9. Her unconditional apology is accepted.
  10. As per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parbat Bhai Aahir and Ors. vs. State of Gujrat & Ors. (AIR 2017 SC 4843), the FIR should not be quashed in case of rape as it is an heinous offence, but when the respondent No.2/complainant/prosecutrix herself takes the initiative and file affidavits before this Court, stating that she made the complaint due to some misunderstanding and now wants to give quietus to the misunderstanding which arose between the petitioner and respondent no.2, in my considered opinion, in such cases, there will be no purpose in continuing with the trial. Ultimately, if such direction is issued, the result will be of acquittal in favour of the accused, but substantial public time shall be wasted.
  11. This Court is conscious about the dictum of the Supreme Court in terms of seriousness of the case, however, keeping in view the settlement arrived between the parties, this Court is inclined to quash the present FIR as no useful purpose would be served in prosecuting the petitioner any further. Moreover, petitioner is a well-educated person. He holds various educational degrees including MBA and CS-Executive, as evidenced by the documents annexed hereto as Annexure P-6 . The Petitioner is currently preparing for CS-Professional and UPSC examinations. Continuation of the proceedings will affect his prospects in clearing examinations.
  12. For the reasons afore-recorded, quashing of FIR No. 381/2020 dated 10.08.2020, registered at Police Station – Kapashera, New Delhi and all other proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
  13. The petition is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of.
  14. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.


Shakur Basti Station alleged gang rape case turns out fake! Woman wanted to leave husband & marry paramour

झूठी निकली शकूरबस्ती रेलवे स्टेशन पर गैंगरेप की कहानी

झूठी निकली शकूरबस्ती रेलवे स्टेशन पर गैंगरेप की कहानी
Story of gang rape at Shakurbasti railway station turned out to be false.

Woman was unhappy with marriage and lived just 3 days with husband. She wanted to get rid of husband and marry her loverboy so filed fake rape case !!

Saroj Singh | नवभारत टाइम्स

Updated: 23 Dec 2020, 01:21:00 PM

Unidentified man found charred to death on railway track

रेलवे पुलिस का दावा है कि ऐसी कोई वारदात हुई ही नहीं। युवती ने पड़ोस में ही रहने वाले अपने एक करीबी दोस्त के साथ मिलकर यह कहानी रची थी, ताकि वह उसके साथ शादी करके अपना घर बसा सके। पुलिस ने अब इस मामले में युवती के दोस्त मनीष (25) को गिरफ्तार किया है और आगे की छानबीन कर रही है।

Railway police claim that no such incident took place. The woman had coined the story with a close friend of hers living in the neighborhood, so that she could marry him and settle down. Police has now arrested the girl’s friend Manish (25) in this case and is investigating further.

डीसीपी (रेलवे) हरेंद्र कुमार सिंह के मुताबिक, मामले की जांच में पता चला कि शकूरबस्ती रेलवे स्टेशन के पास स्थित झुग्गी बस्ती में रहने वाली 20-21 साल की एक युवती के परिजनों ने पिछले साल जबरन युवती की शादी हरियाणा में उससे दोगुनी उम्र के एक शख्स से करवा दी थी, लेकिन शादी के दो-तीन दिन बाद ही युवती मायके लौट आई थी और उसके बाद कभी ससुराल नहीं लौटी। हालांकि, परिजनों ने कई बार उसे ससुराल भेजना चाहा, लेकिन युवती ने जाने से साफ मना कर दिया और तलाक दिलाने की बात करने लगी।

According to DCP (Railways) Harendra Kumar Singh, an investigation into the case revealed that the relatives of a 20-21-year-old girl living in a slum near Shakurbasti railway station forcibly married this woman to a man twice her age in Haryana last year. But after two-three days of marriage, the girl returned to her maternal home and never returned to her in-laws after that. Although the family tried to send her to her in-laws many times, the girl refused to go and started talking about getting a divorce.

source URL