Supreme Court: Non-Signatory Can Be Bound By an Agreement if Involved in Performing the Contract  ||  Supreme Court: 'Washed-Off Theory' Inapplicable in Assessing Employee Retention Suitability  ||  SC Directs States/UTs to Grant Ex-Servicemen Quota to Cadets Disabled 40% or More in Training  ||  Delhi High Court Quashed Cases over Allegations of Excess Lead Content in Maggi Noodles  ||  Madras High Court: Advocates Cannot Hinder Police From Producing Arrested Lawyers Before a Court  ||  Allahabad HC Awarded Rs. 4.75 Lakh Compensation Over Illegal Vehicle Confiscation in a Beef Case  ||  Allahabad High Court: Strong Suspicion, Not Proof of Guilt, is Sufficient to Frame Charges  ||  Delhi HC: Prior Sanction Not Required Where Cognizance Preceded 2018 PC Act Amendment  ||  Bombay High Court: The Notion of a "Perfect Victim" in Rape Cases is a Myth  ||  Allahabad High Court: Prior Agreement With Inquiry Report Doesn't Vitiate Disciplinary Proceedings    

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