You are currently viewing ๐—”๐—น๐—น๐—ฎ๐—ต๐—ฎ๐—ฏ๐—ฎ๐—ฑ ๐—›๐—ถ๐—ด๐—ต ๐—–๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐˜ ๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—ฑ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐˜€ ๐—–๐—•๐—œ ๐—ฝ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—ฏ๐—ฒ ๐—ฎ๐—ด๐—ฎ๐—ถ๐—ป๐˜€๐˜ ๐˜„๐—ผ๐—บ๐—ฎ๐—ป ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฑ ๐—น๐—ฎ๐˜„๐˜†๐—ฒ๐—ฟ ๐—ณ๐—ผ๐—ฟ ๐—ณ๐—ถ๐—น๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด ๐—ณ๐—ฎ๐—น๐˜€๐—ฒ ๐—ฟ๐—ฎ๐—ฝ๐—ฒ, ๐—ผ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ๐—ฟ ๐—ฐ๐—ฎ๐˜€๐—ฒ๐˜€

๐—”๐—น๐—น๐—ฎ๐—ต๐—ฎ๐—ฏ๐—ฎ๐—ฑ ๐—›๐—ถ๐—ด๐—ต ๐—–๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐˜ ๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—ฑ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐˜€ ๐—–๐—•๐—œ ๐—ฝ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—ฏ๐—ฒ ๐—ฎ๐—ด๐—ฎ๐—ถ๐—ป๐˜€๐˜ ๐˜„๐—ผ๐—บ๐—ฎ๐—ป ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฑ ๐—น๐—ฎ๐˜„๐˜†๐—ฒ๐—ฟ ๐—ณ๐—ผ๐—ฟ ๐—ณ๐—ถ๐—น๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด ๐—ณ๐—ฎ๐—น๐˜€๐—ฒ ๐—ฟ๐—ฎ๐—ฝ๐—ฒ, ๐—ผ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ๐—ฟ ๐—ฐ๐—ฎ๐˜€๐—ฒ๐˜€

The Allahabad High Court recently ordered a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe against a woman and her lawyer for repeatedly filing false rape and other criminal cases against multiple men.

The Court said that it was apparent that the woman and her lawyer were working together to file false complaints against several individuals to extract money from them.

While hearing a protection from arrest plea by one of the people accused of such offences, a bench of Justices Brij Raj Singh and Vivek Chaudhary ordered,

โ€œConsidering the seriousness of the allegations with regard to the lodging of large number of criminal complaints by the victim/ informant Pooja Rawat through her counsel Shri Parmanand Gupta against large number of persons, of similar nature, we feel it appropriate to direct the CBI to enquire into the matter and submit its report.โ€

The incident came to light when the petitioners approached the Court seeking to quash a first information report (FIR) dated January 30, filed under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act. The petitioners also requested protection from arrest, coercive action, or any inquiry against them.

Counsel for the petitioners argued that the informant, Pooja Rawat, has a pattern of filing false complaints and has lodged 11 previous FIRs against multiple individuals, with the current one being her 12th. It was also claimed that all her complaints have been filed through the same lawyer, Advocate Parmanand Gupta.

The State counsel pointed out that similar complaint cases have been filed under different offences, and the current FIR is a continuation of that pattern. He also told the Court that Gupta has filed numerous criminal cases and FIRs against various individuals.

After considering the facts, the Court observed,

โ€œIt is also apparent that the informant and her counsel are in collusion with each other and have lodged false FIRs against large number of people for serious offence only to extract money from them. The present FIR is also such an FIR lodged to create pressure.โ€

It thus directed the CBI to look into the matter and submit its report by April 10. It also granted protection from arrest to the petitioners.

Leave a Reply