Supreme Court: Amalgamating Company Loss Cannot be Set Off Against Amalgamated Income  ||  Supreme Court: Hostile Witness Deposition Admissible to the Extent it is Found Credible and Reliable  ||  SC Upholds Penalty on Bank For Delay in Cheque Presentation under Consumer Protection Act  ||  Karnataka High Court Orders Strict Statewide Implementation of Menstrual Leave Policy  ||  Delhi HC: Emergency Arbitrator Awards are Not Binding on Indian Courts in Interim Relief Proceedings  ||  Del HC Imposes ?10L Fine on Parle Agro For Non-Disclosure of Sales Revenue in Pepsico Trademark Case  ||  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    

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