Updated: August 25, 2021 11:45:07 am
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday dismissed the plea filed by a 39-year-old woman alleging that she was stalked and harassed by certain persons at the behest of Shiv Sena MP Sanjay Raut and her estranged husband.
The woman, a psychologist residing at Kalina in Mumbai’s Santacruz, sought directions to the police to investigate three complaints filed by her in 2013 and 2018 against unknown persons and to initiate action against the deputy police commissioner (DCP) of Zone VIII.
A division bench of Justice S S Shinde and Justice N J Jamadar had on July 22 reserved its verdict on her plea.
On Wednesday, the high court asked the woman to follow the process of law and approach the appropriate subordinate court to raise the grievances pertaining to the A-summary report filed by police in two cases and chargesheet in the third complaint.
The court also directed the magistrate to look into the A- summary report filed by police and dispose of the same within 3 months.
According to the petitioner, who was represented by advocate Abha Singh, the DCP allegedly failed to follow the directions of the National Commission for Women to register an FIR against Raut and other persons, including her estranged husband, as they “directly or indirectly” connived with the MP to harass her.
On June 22, the high court had directed the Mumbai Police commissioner to look into the grievances raised by her and submit a report on the matter.
Singh had submitted that in retaliation to three writ petitions filed by her client in the high court, the woman was arrested “illegally” for allegedly practicing at a premier hospital in Bandra (West) for at least two years by using a fake PhD degree of a clinical psychologist before she was removed from the post. On July 27, the woman was granted interim bail by the high court in the said case.
Senior advocate Prasad Dhakephalkar, representing Raut, had said that the woman was like a daughter to his client, adding she had levelled the accusations against him only because she thought the Sena leader was siding with her husband in their matrimonial dispute.
“My client’s name is not mentioned in the FIRs. He had to convince the petitioner to resolve issues with her husband and that has been used against me. My client’s person took her to hospital after she was attacked. At my client’s request, police protection was provided to her and how can she level such allegations?” Dhakephalkar argued last month.
Chief public prosecutor Aruna Pai had submitted that chargesheet had been filed in one of the complaints and A-summary reports had been filed in other two matters and therefore further investigation was not required and said that the pleas were not maintainable.
After Singh submitted that the petitioner did not have faith in the ‘shoddy’ probe by Mumbai police and sought the same to be transferred to CBI, the bench had said, “Matter is before the magistrate. Your statement under section 164 of CrPC is recorded. Why should we suppose that a judicial magistrate will not take an appropriate decision?”
The HC had said, “We can only expedite the proceedings (before magistrate). Everyone should have faith in the law. All courts are creations of the legislature. All judicial forums, from magistrate to Supreme Court… The hierarchy is there. HC is always there.”
📣 The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines
- The Indian Express website has been rated GREEN for its credibility and trustworthiness by Newsguard, a global service that rates news sources for their journalistic standards.