Site news

REPORTEDLY “NO HONEY TRAP CASE” AS “RAMESH JARKIHOLI” COMPLAINT AND FIR DOES NOT “DISCLOSE” NAMES OF EXTORTIONISTS AND BLACK MAILERS”

 
 
Picture of System Administrator
REPORTEDLY “NO HONEY TRAP CASE” AS “RAMESH JARKIHOLI” COMPLAINT AND FIR DOES NOT “DISCLOSE” NAMES OF EXTORTIONISTS AND BLACK MAILERS”
by System Administrator - Sunday, 6 June 2021, 2:05 PM
 

By: M.S.Yatnatti: Editor and Video Journalist Bengaluru: Bengaluru SIT Police is requested to act as per law many citizens. Citizens are requesting Police officers of Special investigation team to take necessary action as per law as per Section 376C of IPC in case of RT Nagar FIR based on victim complaint. In case of Sadashivanagar FIR police need to file B report as the as complaint does not disclose the names of Extortionist and Black mailer and this speaks volumes that no extortion case was made or no black mailing was done as no name was disclosed. First Information Report (FIR) need to be filed immediately upon receipt of complaints if the information disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence. In case of non-cognizable offences, the police do not have a right to investigate the complaint without the orders of the Court. However, complaint must be recorded and a receipt given at police station.The FIR does not disclose the following: The recording officer and the complainant should know to the extent possible, the 11 Ws while recording/reporting the FIR.1. W - What information has come to convey.2. W - In what capacity.3. W - Who committed crime.4. W - Whom against crime committed. 5. W - When (Time)6. W - Where (Place)7. W - Why (Motive)8. W - Which way (actual occurrence) 9. W - Witnesses.10. W - What was taken away.11. W - What traces were left by the accused?. The recording officer should try to fix clearly the identity of accused, the P.Ws. and of the stolen property, This is one of the 8th wonder of Ramesh Jarkiholi complaint and Sadashivanagar Police station FIR does not discloseall 11 points which are essential ingredients of an FIR. The reportedly notice issued by SIT to few people is illegal as per criminal law experts . FIR does not disclose any crime and does not pertain to any accused as nothing is clear in FIR. No crime No accused No evidence No witness No action No FIR No Investigation warranted by SIT in respect of Sadashivanagar Police station FIR by SIT of Bengaluru Police .Few people against whom SIT has issued notice are not arrayed as accused in the said FIR and without FIR no investigation can be carried out by SIT.

According to criminal law experts new amendment in 2013 under section 376 (C) of IPC person in power is barred to do Sexual intercourse with a woman even with her consent as Consensual intercourse by a person in power is crime under section 376 (C) as it is treated as non consensual intercourse even if it appears as consensual sex if woman files compliant and provides proof of intercourse and she appears to have met him seeking some favors' to help her or he has promised to help her. Sexual intercourse with woman by person in power or public servant even with her consent should not go unpunished under section 376 (C) of IPC. Wherefore police need to file charge sheet after investigation in RT Nagar police station FIR and take necessary action as per law. In case of Sadashivanagar FIR police need to file B report as the as complaint does not disclose the names of Extortionist and Black mailer and this speaks volumes that no extortion was made or no black mailing was done as no name was disclosed. Bald FIR has no legal existence in extortion and black mail honey trap case. According to criminal law experts "Sexual intercourse with a woman above 18 years of age is rape if it is under any of the seven descriptions given in Section 375 of the IPC (non-consensual sexual intercourse) but under any circumstances person in power cannot take advantage of consensual sex provision under 376 (C) as consent obtained by person in power is not treated as consent at all. Consensual intercourse by a person in power is crime under section 376 (C) as it is treated as non consensual intercourse even if it appears as consensual sex. So accused cannot get benefit of consensual sex. "Person in power has certain public responsibilities cannot behave like ordinary person. Ordinary person can take advantage of consensual sex provision.