Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Mr. J.S. Bedi, Advocate appearing for petitioner Mohan Lal Saini has vehemently contended that an application annexure P-1 was obtained from one Shalu resident of Sanjay Colony, addressed to the Police Post, Sector 29, Panipat, alleging that she was called in the afternoon on March 18, 2011 in the Pratap Factory for getting work by the owner of the factory Pratap Singh C. He committed bad act with her on the wooden bed placed in the adjoining room in his office. Mr. Bedi has argued that the thumb impression of Suman @ Shalu existing on the compliant dated March 19, 2011 has not been matched with thumb impression of Suman @ Shalu daughter of Ashok. The complaint dated March 19, 2011 made by Shalu daughter of Pardeep is fake and the complaint is a procured document. Mr. Bedi has vehemently urged that even if the statements of Shalu @ Nazis and Suman @ Shalu dated September 2, 2011 and September 7, 2011 are believed to be correct, no offence is made out as the allegations of time, CRM M-1093 of 2013 [10] date and place of occurrence are vague. Referring to the statements of Shalu @ Nazis under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., it was argued that they do not name the petitioner to have committed any offence. It was highlighted by the counsel for the petitioner that these girls have performed a number of scandals of similar nature. A great emphasis was laid on the fact that Sunita Sharma @ Meenu has been running the business of blackmailing well to do of individuals and that she has got lodged similar case in Haridwar bearing FIR No. 19/2011 dated June 12, 2011 under Sections 471, 506, 120-B IPC against Ram Saroop Brahamchari. As in the present case affidavits of two girls Richa and Kamlesh were filed stating that Sunita Sharma @ Meenu has blackmailed them and asked them to file a false complaint against the accused. Reliance has been made on the affidavits of two ladies dated July 1, 2011 annexures P-18 and P-19.