A Mumbai magistrate court rejected the police’s closure report in a rape case against T-Series company managing director Bhushan Kumar, son of late music tycoon Gulshan Kumar. The court concluded that “many legal aspects had been compromised” throughout the investigation.
The complainant woman had abused legal provisions intended for low-income litigants by supporting the final report (B-summary), the court ordered the police to investigate the matter under the law and the zonal DCP to supervise the investigation.
While the police describe a case as willfully false or when there is no evidence or a prima facie case against the accused following an investigation, a “B summary” report got prepared.
The interim report was rejected by Metropolitan Magistrate RR Khan earlier this month, and the complete ruling was made public on Monday.
Following receipt of the B summary notice, the woman filed an affidavit with the court, indicating that she is an actor and claims against Bhushan Kumar due to “circumstantial misunderstanding” and that she is dropping them. She had stated that she had no objections to the approval of the B-summary.
“As far as the victim is concerned, she has set the criminal law into motion and after some time, she has no grievances for acceptance of the final report. Her conduct furnishes an assurance that she has misused the provisions of law that are meant for needy litigants. For her gain and advantages, she has crossed every limit which all women are following for decades,” the court noted.
The judge also slammed Kumar and a witness for seeking intervention petitions in the case.
The magistrate stated that both of them had “no locus” to appear and intervene in the case and that they “exceeded all bounds” by filing such petitions.
The magistrate stated that these attempts demonstrated his (Bhushan Kumar’s) desire to resolve the matter as soon as possible.
Regarding the police investigation, the court observed that the most notable characteristic of this case is that once the charge got registered, neither the investigating officers nor the accused approached for pre-arrest release, demonstrating “confidence and dedication.”
The court also ordered the additional public prosecutor to pursue legal action against the victim who had abused the legal system.
