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 - Thursday, 10 June 2021, 1:41 PM
 

By: M.S.Yatnatti: Editor and Video Journalist Bengaluru: Reportedly The Karnataka High Court issued notice to the State government, Home department, City Police Commissioner and SIT on a petition filed by the woman in the controversial CD case, allegedly involving former minister Ramesh Jarkiholi. Justice S Vishwajith Shetty issued notice after hearing the petition filed by the woman, seeking to quash the order passed to constitute the SIT and issue direction to the state to form a fresh team to investigate her complaint of rape against the former minister, under the supervision of the HC.Contending that the very constitution of the SIT, based on a letter written by the accused to the Home Minister, is itself illegal, as it was not constituted as per CrPC, the petitioner alleged that SIT is protecting the former minister, who has not been arrested even two months after an FIR was registered. He was not even subjected to a medical test for DNA profiling, as per law, she alleged. She stated in her petition that after intervention of the high court, her statement was recorded behind closed doors by the magistrate. However, on April 2, 2021, media started carrying contents of her statement, which was leaked by the SIT in connivance with the political executive of the government, to traumatise her. It is enough and more reason to believe the SIT was not conducting a fair investigation, she alleged.

The alleged The Fact of the case: The woman victim filed complaint at the Cubbon Park police station on March 26, accusing Jarkiholi of 'using' her on the pretext of allowing her to shoot a documentary related to his department. The police had registered an FIR against Jarkiholi under Sections 376C (sexual intercourse by a person in authority), 354A (sexual harassment), 504 (provoke breach of the peace), 506 (criminal intimidation), 417 (punishment for cheating) of the IPC, and 67A (transmitting material containing a sexually explicit act, etc., in electronic form) of the Information Technology Act. Reportedly Evidence is found against the accused (Jarkiholi) in this case According to allegation Jarkiholi is alleged of 'using' her on the pretext of allowing her to shoot a documentary related to his department has induced and seduced as the conversation between woman and jarkiholi as available in public domain is evidence and reportedly he has confessed that CD is not fake and he had intercourse with woman with consent as this exactly is sufficient evidence under Sections 376C (sexual intercourse by a person in authority),and police need to file charge sheet and question of filing B report does not arsise as per law.

Bengaluru SIT Police is requested to act as per law in respect of woman victimcomplaint against Sri Ramesh Jarkiholi in Cubban Park police station . 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 cubbon park police station 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 ofExtortionist 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 Jarkiholicomplaint 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 peopleis 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.