Supreme Court: Borrowers Retain Redemption Rights if Balance is Paid After Auction Deadline  ||  Supreme Court: Non-Confirmation of Seizure under Section 37A Impacts Adjudication Proceedings  ||  SC: Blacklisting After Contract Termination is Not Automatic and Needs Independent Review  ||  Grand Venice Fraud Case: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Satinder Singh Bhasin  ||  SC: Senior Employee Cannot Claim Same Lesser Penalty As Subordinate; Bank Manager's Dismissal Upheld  ||  Madras HC: Governor Must Follow Cabinet's Advice on Remission Decisions, Regardless of Personal View  ||  Kerala High Court: Entrepreneurs Must Be Protected From Baseless Protests to Boost Industrial Growth  ||  J&K&L High Court: Second FIR Valid if it Reveals a Broader Conspiracy; 'Test of Sameness' is Key  ||  Supreme Court: Expecting a Minor to Respond to a Public Court Notice is ‘Perverse’  ||  SC: Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Applies to S. 11 Arbitration Act, Barring Fresh Arbiration After Abandonment    

State v. Rahul Shrivastav and anr - (05 Dec 2015)

Court orders perjury proceedings against untruthful ‘victim’

Criminal

A Special Fast Track Court in Delhi directed initiation of proceedings against a prosecutrix for perjuring in her complaint for rape. The Court had noted that Prosecutrix’s version of events were incredible and untruthful, motivated by a desire to extort money from the accused. Noting the time spent in jail by one falsely accused in the pendency of proceedings and “the ignominy, ridicule and harassment suffered by him”, and Prosecutrix’s false depositions without fear of the law, it determined sufficient cause to begin proceedings against her.

Tags : PERJURY   FALSE COMPLAINT   RAPE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved