(अमेरिकी महिला से रेप के आरोपी सोशल एक्टिविस्ट लेनिन रघुवंशी की फाइल फोटो)
1) Dr. Lenin herein is the CEO and Founder of an organization called “People’s Vigilance Committee on Human Rights” (PVCHR) started in 1996 as a membership based human rights movement in Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh), one of the most traditional, conservative and segregated regions in India. PVCHR works to ensure basic rights for marginalized groups in the Indian society, e.g. children, women, Dalits and tribes and to create a human rights culture based on democratic values.
2) The brief facts of the present case in the present case are as follows:
a) That on 22.4.2012, the complainant, An American girl approached the Applicant via email. She introduced herself as an individual concerned with the rights of the Dalits and Adivasis and expressed desire to visit PVCHR in Varanasi and get involved with the activities of the organization. (Annex 1)
b) That in response to the complainant’s e-mail, Shabana, who is a Senior Member of the management Committee of PVCHR wrote to her inviting her to Varanasi and also told her that she can stay with Shruti i.e. Applicant’s wife during her visit to Varanasi. Complainant was further informed that the Applicant would be reaching Varanasi on the evening of May 1, 2012 and would be leaving again on May 3, 2012.The complainant willingly agreed to stay with the Applicant’s wife and confirmed that she would be reaching Varanasi on April 28, 2012 and would leave on May 1, 2012 and expressed hope to meet the Applicant during this time. To this, the Applicant wrote to the complainant that he would be reaching Varanasi on April 28, 2012 and leaving again on April 29, 2012 and hence they can meet on April 28, 2012. A tentative schedule was also prepared for her by the organization and e-mailed to her. Copies of the e-mails dated 22.4.2012, 23.4.2012, 24.4.42012, 25.4.2012, 27.4.2012 and 28.4.2012 exchanged between them in this time are attached herewith and marked as Annexure 2
c) That on 28.4.2012, the complainant reached Varanasi from Bombay and stayed with Applicant’s family there. The Applicant herein had also reached Varanasi on 28.4.2012 from Delhi and on 29.4.2012, left for Delhi the next day for a dinner with the EU Ambassador. This was the first time that the Applicant had met the complainant. Annexure 3
d) The complainant stayed with the Applicant’s wife, Shruti Nagwanshi for 4 days i.e. 28.4.2012 to 1.5.2012. They became friendly with each other and shared an amicable relationship.
e) As the purpose of the complainant’s visit was to get involved with the activities of the organization, during her stay in Varanasi, she had key meetings with the staff of the organization and she also visited the Bhagwanala slum area where the organization does field work. On 1.5.2012, when her visit came to an end, she donated Rs.10,000/- to PVCHR, before leaving for Mumbai.(Annex 4)
f) That after this visit to Varanasi, the complainant made all efforts to remain in touch with the Applicant. She used to chat with the Applicant online and most of the conversation was regarding work of the Applicant. Complainant was always appreciative of his work and they used to discuss various social issues. On May 8, 2013, the complainant asked the Applicant (over online chat) if they can meet in Varanasi on May 13, 2013. She told him that it was her birthday on May 14 and would love to spend it in Varanasi. As the Applicant had to catch a flight to Seoul on May 14, 2013 from New Delhi, they decided to meet in Delhi on May 13, 2013. A copy of the online chat between the Applicant and complainant is attached herewith as Annexure – 5
g) That on May 13, 2013, Applicant checked in at Hotel Nancy Delux, Delhi at 7 PM. The complainant reached there around 10 PM.
h) That though a room was booked for her in the same hotel by the Applicant, the complainant refused to fill up the form that has to be filled up by foreign citizens staying in that hotel. She also did not like the room offered to her and so her booking was cancelled and she moved to another location. She suggested that the Applicant also goes along with her but the Applicant did not go and stayed back where he had made his booking.
i) That the next day, i.e. on May 14, 2013, the Applicant left for Seoul from Delhi and the complainant went to Varanasi to visit PVCHR again. This was the second and last time that the Applicant met the complainant. The ticket for the complainant was booked by Applicant’s organization and she later paid the amount for that ticket to the organization. A true copy of this ticket of the complainant from Delhi to Varanasi is attached herewith as Annexure 6-. A copy of the ticket and boarding pass of the Applicant from New Delhi to Seoul is attached herewith as Annexure 7.
j) That after her meeting with the Applicant in New Delhi, the complainant reached Varanasi on May 14, 2013. As it was her birthday that day, she celebrated the same with the Applicant’s wife, Applicant’s son and one of the office staff, Rohit. Photographs of the same are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure 8.
k) That she was very friendly with Applicant’s wife and during this visit also, she stayed at Applicant’s house with his wife and son. The Applicant was not in Varanasi during this time even for a day.
l) That on May 18, 2013, it was the Applicant’s birthday and though he was not there, the complainant joined the family celebrations for the birthday with the Applicant’s wife and son. It can thus be seen that after the complainant’s visit to Delhi and meeting with the Applicant, she continued to maintain extremely friendly and cordial personal relationship with his family. See Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO85MTg7JfU
m) That during her stay in Varanasi, the complainant met Sapna, a victim of domestic violence who was being supported by the Applicant’s organization. The complainant took a lot of interest in her case. Sapna was being physically and mentally exploited by her husband and PVCHR had been helping and supporting her. Sapna’s husband had been threatening the Applicant, his family and the organization and in the past had even gone to the extent of making a life-threatening attack on the Applicant when 3 armed men had reached Applicant’s house with guns and knives. Fortunately the Applicant survived the attack with some injuries. An FIR was registered regarding this incident and the same is annexed herewith as Annexure 10. He also had made various false and baseless allegations against the organization to the effect that his wife was being pressurized and exploited by members of PVCHR. Allahabad High Court had passed an order in favour of the organization, holding all allegations of Sapna’s husband to be false and baseless. A copy of this judgment is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure 11.
n) That shockingly, the complainant, during her visit to Varanasi in May, 2013, while she was staying with the Applicant’s family, started keeping in touch with Sapna’s husband and used to meet him at his brother in law’s guest house regularly. Complainant never shared the reason and nature of these meetings with Sapna’s husband with anyone in the organization. The complainant for reasons unknown had also been instigating Sapna to go to Bangalore and seek help from the NGOs working there.
o) That the complainant left Varanasi on May 20, 2013 and soon thereafter, a false FIR came to be lodged by Sapna’s husband against the Applicant herein under Sections 342, 384 and 498 of Indian Penal Code regarding Sapna. It is suspected that the same was filed in connivance with the complainant. The said FIR was baseless and Sapna in her statement given to the magistrate under Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code stated that the Applicant’s organization has been supporting her and the allegations made in the FIR were false and it was her husband who has been harassing and exploiting her. Copies of the said FIR and statement of Sapna under Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure 12.
p) That on June 4, 2013 Shruti, i.e. wife of the Applicant received an absurd email from the complainant asking why she (Shruti) told Sapna that the complainant was a bad girl and that the complainant loved the Applicant and because he refused her, she blamed him. In this e-mail, the complainant alleged that Sapna was not being treated properly by her and PVCHR. She also made an allegation that the Applicant had done her wrong in New Delhi and that the complainant had told this to Shruti. A copy of this e-mail dated June 4, 2013 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure 13.
q) As Shruti (Applicant’s wife) had lost her e-mail password, she checked her e-mail after a long time and was shocked to read complainant’s e-mail. She replied to the complainant’s e-mail on September 19, 2013 and clarified to her that she had not said anything bad about her to Sapna. She also told her that PVCHR were not forcing Sapna for anything and were doing everything they can to make her life better. A copy of this email dated September 19, 2013 is annexed herewith Annexure 14.
r) That in November, 2013, Sapna was living with her relatives and decided to go back to her husband and did so without even informing the Applicant’s organization. That Sapna shared an amicable relationship with the members and staff of PVCHR and had always been grateful to them for their support. It thus came as a shock when the Applicant got to know that Sapna had given a complaint to the police against PVCHR for mental and physical exploitation. The same was filed clearly on instigation and pressure from her husband. As the complaint was baseless and without any merits, all allegations were found to be false. A true copy of the report by police on this complaint is annexed herewith Annexure 15.
s) That on December 26, 2014, Shabana had, on behalf of the organization sent a mass appeal through e-mail regarding barbaric crimes against women. As the same was sent to a pre-formed mailing list consisting of e-mail ids of people associated with the NGO, the mail got sent to the complainant as well.
t) The very next day, the complainant replied asking why Shabana had sent her that e-mail, to which Shabana wrote to her that as she was a part of the mailing list, the e–mail went to her as well and that her name would be removed from the mailing list.
u) On December 28, 2014, the complainant wrote to Shabana alleging that the Applicant had raped her and had lost her trust and once again mentioned that the organization was ill-treating Sapna. Shabana by her email dated December 29, 2014 clarified to the complainant that Sapna and members of the organization were on amicable terms. It was further clarified that her allegations against the Applicant were an attempt of character assassination and all the communication between the Applicant and the complainant as well as the photographs of her birthday celebration were being scrutinized by a committee of the organization. Copies of these emails dated 27.12.2014, 28.12.2014 and 29.12.2014 are annexed herewith as Annexure 16.
v) That in view of the allegations made by the complainant in her e-mails, the organization called for a sexual harassment committee meeting and on January 2, 2015, after considering the vague and baseless nature of the allegations, gave a report exonerating the Applicant. A copy of this report is annexed herewith as Annexure 17.
w) That to Applicant’s utter shock on April 9, 2015, he got to know through a news report shared on face book that an FIR has been registered against him by the complainant at Paharganj Police Station, New Delhi A copy of these newspaper reports are annexed herewith as Annexure 18
x) That after enquiring from the concerned Police Station, the Applicant’s Advocate got to know that the case has been registered under Sections 376 and 328 of the Indian Penal Code. Even after giving an application for providing a copy of the FIR, the same was not supplied to the accused.
4. That the Applicant herein is apprehending arrest in relation to the above-mentioned FIR and is seeking anticipatory bail on the following amongst other grounds:
A. That the Applicant is innocent and the FIR has been filed maliciously solely for the purpose of harassing and maligning the reputation of the Applicant.
B. That as per the newspaper report, the alleged incident happened in 2013 and there is no explanation for a delay of over 2 years in filing the present FIR and it is clearly an afterthought and an attempt to harass and falsely implicate the Applicant. After her meeting with the Applicant in Delhi, no information regarding any untoward incident was given by her to the hotel staff or the police. In fact, after their meeting, she visited Varanasi and stayed with Applicant’s family there.
C. That the Applicant has met the complainant only on two occasions. First time was on April 28, 2012, when the complainant was visiting Varanasi and staying at Applicant’s house with his family and the second time was on May 13, 2013 in New Delhi. Both the times the meeting was brief and mainly because of insistence from the complainant herself.
D. That the Applicant had gone to Varanasi and stayed with Applicant’s wife and son after her meeting with the Applicant in New Delhi. She even celebrated her own birthday as well as the Applicant’s birthday with Applicant’s family during her stay in Varanasi. Her relationship with Applicant’s family was friendly and affectionate.
E. That as depicted in the facts hereinabove, Sapna’s husband had made several and repeated efforts to harass the Applicant in the past as well and the Applicant believes that they were also instigated by the present complainant, who seems to be determined to tarnish the image of the Applicant herein. As depicted in the facts hereinabove, the complainant was in contact with Sapna’s husband and they in connivance with each other have been making all possible efforts to harass and malign the image of the Applicant and his organization.
F. That recently, the Applicant has been nominated for Roland Berger Human Dignity award. The process to select the awardee consists of a background check of all the nominees and the present allegation against the Applicant seems to be an attempt by a competitive NGO also working in Varanasi to ensure that the Applicant does not get that award. One of the NGOs functioning in Varanasi has been taking unduly keen interest in pursuing the present case against the Applicant which has given rise to such suspicion in the mind of the Applicant.
G. That the Applicant is a law-abiding and a respectable citizen and has no previous criminal antecedents. He is an individual whose contribution in the social sector has been commendable and the filing of the present FIR is merely an attempt of character assassination and harassment of the Applicant and his family.
H. That the facts narrated above clearly depict the baseless and malicious nature of the FIR against the Applicant and has been filed by the complainant to seek some unknown personal vendetta against the Applicant and in connivance with competitive organizations with the objective of tarnishing the image and reputation of the Applicant as well as his organization-PVCHR.
Shirin Shabana Khan
People’s Vigilance Committee on Human Rights (PVCHR)
An initiative of Jan Mitra Nyas ISO 9001:2008
SA 4/2 A Daulatpur, Varanasi – 221002 India
कृपया हमें अनुसरण करें और हमें पसंद करें: