UT: Court stays order on closure report against son of ex-IPS officer in 2016 rape case
The court of additional sessions judge has stayed a previous order, wherein the cancellation report against former Punjab IPS officer’s son in a rape case had been rejected.
The court of additional sessions judge has stayed a previous order, wherein the cancellation report against former Punjab IPS officer’s son in a rape case had been rejected.
The order was passed after the petitioner, Vikramjeet Singh, accused in the case, had filed a revision petition and put on record text messages exchanged between him and the complainant woman to “demolish” the allegations levelled by the complainant.
Vikramjeet is the son of former Punjab inspector general (IG) Sham Lal Gakhar. He was booked by the UT police for allegedly raping and extorting money from a woman in March 2016.
The revision petition was filed on January 16, for setting aside the order passed on December 21, 2016, whereby the cancellation report was rejected and cognisance of the cancellation report was taken as if it was a police report against the petitioner for allegedly committing offences. punishable under sections 376 ( punishment for rape), 386 (extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt), 419 (punishment for cheating by personation) and 420 (cheat) of IPC. Non-bailable warrants against the accused were also issued on the said date.
As per the record of text messages submitted in court, they exchanged large number of messages between August 2015 and till November 2015. “The smses exchanged between the petitioner and complainant would demolish the allegations levelled by respondent complainant,” the petition states.
Vikramjeet claimed that a false complaint was filed against him following which police conducted the probe and concluded that the allegations were not “sustainable” and the cancellation report was submitted. The data obtained from mobile phones of Vikramjeet and the complainant was verified.
POINTS RAISED
It has been argued that the accused (petitioner) had picked her up, offered her some drink laced with sedatives in a guest house, after which she got unconscious and was raped. However, the owner of the said house had stated that he neither saw the petitioner nor the woman. Also, the woman had levelled allegations of petitioner trying to mortgage her gold but the jeweller’s accountant had told police that they never purchased any jewellery from Vikramjeet or the victim.
