Sexual harassment case: Haryana minister Sandeep Singh opposes day-to-day hearing

Bhartesh Singh Thakur

Chandigarh, December 16

Haryana minister Sandeep Singh has opposed day-to-day hearings in the sexual harassment case pending against him. He replied to an application moved by the complainant before a trial court in Chandigarh, where she relied on Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay’s case being heard in the Supreme Court for the speedy disposal of cases against MPs/MLAs.

The case came up for hearing today but was adjourned to January 6 for arguments.

He submitted that the order in Upadhyay’s case was reserved, and as such there had been no direction at present by which the trial in the present case should be conducted on a day-to-day basis. He said there had been no such direction from the High Court.

His reply stated, “It is submitted that to date, the accused has not filed any application to cause any delay in the present case, rather it is the complainant who has filed a number of applications to cause unnecessary delay.”

He also opposed the complainant’s application for committing the case for session trial under Section 209, CrPC, as she was levelling allegations of attempt to rape against him. He said perusal of the FIR showed that initially it was registered by the police under Sections 354, 354 A, 354-B, and 506, IPC. After recording the statement under Section 164, CrPC, Section 509, IPC, was also added by the police. “It is submitted that a bare perusal of the FIR and statements got recorded by the complainant to the SIT, during the course of investigation would show that she had made various improvements.” He claimed that the complainant didn’t make the attempt to rape allegation at the initial stage, which reflected that her allegations were false. She had also been seeking a copy of her statement from the court, where she levelled attempt to rape allegations.

He submitted that “in the present case, the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC is lying in a sealed envelope and the same has also not been supplied to the accused during compliance under Section 207 of the CrPC,” as such her averment “is misconceived”.