Supreme Court: Spouse Cannot Withdraw Consent for Mutual Divorce After Settlement Agreement  ||  Supreme Court Suspends PC Act Sentence of Former Minister Anosh Ekka, Flags Overlapping CBI Cases  ||  Supreme Court: Magistrate’s Probe Order Can’t be Quashed on Accused’s Defence  ||  Delhi High Court: No Adverse Inference if Handwriting Sample Refused Without Section 73 Disclosure  ||  J&K&L HC: Bank Officials Not Entitled to Section 197 CrPC Protection Despite Public Servant Status  ||  Kar HC Orders CBI Probe into 53-Acre Land Acquisition, Citing Alleged Monumental Fraud & Conspiracy  ||  Supreme Court Grants Probation to Convicts; Rules Fine-Only Cases Also Eligible  ||  SC Disposes Plea on Allied Health Course Moratorium After NCAHP Issues 2026–27 Guideline  ||  Supreme Court Grants Promotion Relief to Employee Denied Relaxation, Calling it Discrimination  ||  Patna HC: Tender Lapses if Not Extended on Time & Delay Cannot be Cured by Repeated Representations    

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