False rape case: Extortion, corruption charges framed against Panchkula DSP, 2 ASIs | punjab | chandigarh | Hindustan Times
  • Saturday, Jul 21, 2018
  •   °C  
Today in New Delhi, India
Jul 21, 2018-Saturday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

False rape case: Extortion, corruption charges framed against Panchkula DSP, 2 ASIs

On May 22, 2015, the Chandimandir police station booked an Ambala resident, Pranveer Saini for rape on the complaint of a local resident, Rajni.  But later the complaint was found false. Investigators determined that the complainant, the DSP and the ASIs implicated Pranveer to extort money from him and his family.   

punjab Updated: Apr 20, 2018 14:02 IST
Vivek Gupta
Vivek Gupta
Hindustan Times, Panchkula
Extortion,corruption charges,Panchkula DSP
The probe found that ASI Ramesh, the then in-charge of Ramgarh police post, and ASI Raj Pal, in conspiracy with other accused, had demanded Rs 40 lakh for themselves and the then Panchkula DSP Desh Bandhu.(Representative image )

A local court has framed charges against a deputy superintendent of police (DSP) and two assistant sub-inspectors (ASIs) for corruption, extortion, false information and criminal conspiracy in a 2015 false rape case. The trial will begin on May 16. DSP Desh Bandhu is currently posted at Haryana Police headquarters, while ASI Raj Pal is posted in Sector-25 crime branch, Panchkula, and ASI Ramesh was recently shifted from Panchkula police lines to Yamunanagar.

What is the matter

On May 22, 2015, the Chandimandir police station booked an Ambala resident, Pranveer Saini for rape on the complaint of a local resident, Rajni.But later the complaint was found false. Investigators determined that the complainant, the DSP and the ASIs implicated Pranveer to extort money from him and his family.

The probe found that ASI Ramesh, the then in-charge of Ramgarh police post, and ASI Raj Pal, in conspiracy with other accused, had demanded Rs 40 lakh for themselves and the then Panchkula DSP Desh Bandhu.

Trio claim innocence
  • During arguments on framing of charges, the counsel representing the two ASIs claimed that there was no material evidence to prove charges of corruption and extortion against them. The duo even claimed of having been exonerated in the internal findings.
  • Similarly, DSP Bandhu’s counsel Abhishek Rana pleaded that his client was falsely implicated, and he had no concern with the demand of money by the co-accused. Even Rajni and her kin claimed that the police had termed her complaint false, even as her medical was conducted and also a statement was recorded before a magistrate under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code

After initial FIR, three separate challans were filed in the extortion case. The first one was filed on September 9, 2015, against Rajni and her kin Hasim Ansari. Second challan, dated November 9, 2015, was filed against both ASIs and Rajni’s acquaintances Nasim Ansari and Salim Ansari, besides Subodh Pruthi and Ashwani Sahni, who were linked with the police.

Finally, DSP Bandhu was charged under various sections of the of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act on November 22, 2015.

Charges framed

Hearing the matter on April 13, the court of additional sessions judge Narender Shaura in his order stated that on the perusal of phone transcripts, the inquiry reached to the conclusion that a false rape case was lodged by Rajni and an amount was demanded on behalf of DSP DeshBandhu, who was the then supervisory officer of Chandimandir police station, where the rape case was initially registered.

The court further ruled that the argument of the police officials that they were exonerated in the departmental enquiry did not hold ground.

“The court is of the view that there is prima facie evidence against them for framing of charge for commission of offences punishable under Sections 7, 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and also for commission of offences punishable under Section 389 (extortion) read with Section 120B (criminal conspiracy),” read the order.

Other accused, including Rajni, are charged with wrong information (Section 182), cheating by personation (Section 419), forgery (Section 468) and criminal conspiracy (Section 120-B) of the IPC.