news details |
|
|
| Court directive to respondents in alleged sex scam | | | early times report
SRINAGAR, Apr 23: Additional sessions judge, Srinagar, R K Wattal has directed respondents, all police personnel, to appear in the court in connection with a sex scandal which they were alleged to have exposed.
The petition was filed by Ashwani Singh, son of Nasib Singh of Gandhi Nagar, and Jagbir Singh, son of Lahna Singh of Baghwati Nagar, under section 476 of CrPC by the petitioners on the ground that they had been falsely implicated by the respondents on October 14, 2004, with the intent to cause injury to their reputation.
They submitted that their reputation was further spoiled when on October 30, 2004, a false and fabricated challan was produced in the court at the behest of the respondents against them under section 7 of Prevention of Immoral Trafficking Act and against certain other persons under sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act.
On October 14, 2004, five ladies and one Ghulam Qadir Bhat (58), a shawl vendor were arrested from Chinkral Mohalla, Habbakadal, at about 12.30 pm and the applicants were arrested by police at about 3.13 pm on the same day from Badamibagh near Shangrila hotel while they were traveling in a car from Indira Nagar to Circuit House.
A police gypsy intercepted the petitioners' car. Three police personnel in civil clothes jumped out of it and dragged the petitioners out of the car to the gypsy.
In the meanwhile, Rasik Mir, SHO of Khanyar police station, along with police personnel, arrived at the spot and pushed both the applicants into the first gypsy.
They were then taken to Khanyar police station where the five ladies and other arrested men were sitting in the office of SP (north), Srinagar B A Khan. Thereafter, they were taken to a room where HC Ali Mohammad alias Alia alleged asked them to part with Rs 30 lakhs as protection money along with their car (JK02L/9663) in which they were traveling at the time of arrest on the pretext that they belonged to Jammu having business interests in the valley and had not been paying anything to police.
Alia told them that in case they did not accede to their demand, police would implicate them in a sex racket in which five ladies and Ghulam Qadir Bhat sitting outside had been arrested.
The petitioners were also taken before IGP (Kashmir) K Rajindera (now ADGP, armed police), SSP, Srinagar, SP, (north) Srinagar, B A Khan, SP (south), Srinagar, P S Pani, and DSP Farooq Ahmad Zargar. They explained them the story of their unwarranted arrest and extortion attempt by Alia.
But a press conference was called later in which it was allegedly told that the petitioners were involved in a sex racket of "call girls" in Chinkral Mohalla. They were, however, later released on bail by the court.
The petitioners then challenged the criminal proceedings initiated against them in a petition filed in January 2006 under section 561-A of CrPC which was clubbed with OWP/299 and 300/2006 vide order dated June 20, 2006, passed by Srinagar high court.
The CBI was also directed to re-investigate the case, considering facts and circumstances. The high court had later transferred all the cases arising out of FIR No
80/2004 pertaining to the applicants for further orders and disposal to the court of additional sessions judge, Srinagar.
As per the investigation, the petitioners were found to be falsely implicated in the case by police offices. The theory propounded by the police officers against the petitioners had been belied and charges levelled against them that they were arrested from a house being run as a brothel along with prostitutes in Chinkral Mohalla were found false and fabricated.
After hearing the counsels of the two sides, the judge said this court was not bound to hear the respondents, but since the matter regarding offences against public justice were serious which have far reaching implications, the court had to be satisfied that it was expedient for the ends of justice to launch the prosecution.
"Therefore, in order to record the satisfaction on this count, and the order prayed for visiting adverse consequences, I am of the opinion that before taking any action in the matter, the principles of natural justice demand that affected parties should be given the opportunity of being heard in the interests of justice," he added.
The perusal of the application showed that there are allegations against the respondents 2 to 12 but regarding the respondent No 1, ie K Rajindera, nothing material is imputable to him he was said to have been present when the petitioners were alleged to have been arrested and produced in the room. As such, respondent No 1 does not require to be proceeded further, but justice demands that the respondents 2 to 12 should be given the opportunity of being heard who are as such notified to appear before this court in person, by pleader, or advocate or attorney to put forth their stand with regard to the application of the petitioners.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
