scorecardresearch
Follow Us:
Monday, November 30, 2020

Man behind FIR against woman in CJI Ranjan Gogoi case can’t be found: Police

When The Indian Express had visited Kumar’s Jhajjar home in April, his mother Meena (50) had said that her son left for Chandigarh at 7 am on April 20, and his phone was switched off thereafter.

Written by Pritam Pal Singh , Mahender Singh Manral | New Delhi | Updated: July 25, 2019 12:18:01 pm
Ranjan Gogoi, CJI Gogoi, CJI Gogoi sexual harassment, Ranjan Gogoi sexual harassment, Supreme court, MeToo, The woman accused in this case is the same person who had levelled allegations of sexual harassment against Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi.

A 31-year-old man, who accused a former Supreme Court woman employee of cheating him of Rs 50,000 on the pretext of getting him a job at the top court, has not been found at his residential address in Haryana since April, police have told a Delhi court.

The woman accused in this case is the same person who had levelled allegations of sexual harassment against Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi. In a sworn affidavit, she had called the cheating case filed against her as “false and frivolous”, and claimed that she was being victimised for complaining against the CJI.

The non-availability of the cheating case complainant, Naveen Kumar, at his Haryana address was disclosed on July 19 before Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Manish Khurana who had called for the man’s presence in court. Earlier, the Delhi Police Crime Branch had sought cancellation of the bail granted to the woman on March 12 after the man alleged he was being threatened by the woman and her husband.

When The Indian Express had visited Kumar’s Jhajjar home in April, his mother Meena (50) had said that her son left for Chandigarh at 7 am on April 20, and his phone was switched off thereafter. She said that she had told him “not to file the case” since it was “not wise to fight with powerful people”. According to his family, Kumar used to work as a security guard at H L City Pvt Ltd in Jhajjar, earning Rs 15,000 a month.

Phone calls to Kumar Wednesday went unanswered.

On April 24, CMM Khurana had issued notice to Kumar, seeking his presence in court on May 23, and then on July 19. But investigating officer Mukesh Antil told the court that the notice issued to complainant had remained “unserved” because he was not found at his address.

“The notice issued to the complainant received back unserved and he was not found present at his address, and the IO informed that the notice was attempted to be served to the complainant through process server ASI Lal Singh,” the officer informed the court.

Read | CJI Gogoi gets clean chit in sealed cover, woman says worst fears have come true

At this, the court issued fresh notice to him and sought his presence on September 6. It also directed that the complainant be served the notice through the IO for the next date.

This was objected to by the woman’s counsel, V K Ohri, who sought that the police plea be dismissed and the case be closed against his client. “The judge said last opportunity is being given to the police to serve the notice to the complainant,” Ohri told The Indian Express.

Under the law, if the investigating agency is moving any application or wants to get any court order against any of the parties involved, the fact has to be brought to the knowledge of the complainant and the accused.

An FIR for alleged offences of cheating, criminal intimidation and criminal conspiracy was lodged against the woman on March 3, after a complaint was filed by Kumar at the Tilak Marg police station in central Delhi. Kumar had alleged that he paid her Rs 50,000 for a job in the Supreme Court.

Read | This episode is going to haunt SC in years to come: Justice AP Shah on CJI sexual harassment case

During the investigation, the woman was arrested by police on March 10 and was sent to judicial custody by a court the next day. She was granted bail on March 12.

On March 14, the investigation was transferred to the Crime Branch and the complainant sent an application to the DCP (Crime Branch), alleging that he was being threatened by the woman and her associates.

But the woman, in a sworn affidavit, stated that victimisation of her and her family started after she said that she had been sexually harassed by the CJI.

📣 The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App.

0 Comment(s) *
* The moderation of comments is automated and not cleared manually by indianexpress.com.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement