Bungalow No 5, Sunehri Bagh Road: LS House Committee offers Rahul Gandhi new residence
New Delhi, Jul 26: Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi is set to get a new residence with the House Committee offering him Bungalow No 5, Sunehri Bagh Road, sources said.
The buzz around the residence he is set to get gained traction after his sister Priyanka Gandhi Vadra visited Bungalow No 5, Sunehri Bagh Road.
Parliamentary sources said that Gandhi has been offered the bungalow and a response is awaited from his end.
Since Gandhi became an MP, his residence had been 12, Tughlaq Lane. However, he had vacated that house after he was disqualified from Lok Sabha last year, following his conviction in a defamation case.
Gandhi then moved into the 10, Janpath residence of his mother Sonia Gandhi and has been living there even after his disqualification was revoked.
With Gandhi becoming the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, he is entitled to a Type 8 bungalow as he holds the rank of a Cabinet minister.
LoP Rahul Gandhi’s new address in Delhi before moving to 7 Lok Kalyan Marg. 🔥
— Shantanu (@shaandelhite) July 26, 2024
5 Sunehri Bagh Road. pic.twitter.com/aiFlRZ8dzw
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Quashing FIR of sexual assault, Delhi HC says some use provision to 'harass' men
New Delhi (PTI): The offence of rape is one of the most heinous crimes against women but some people use the legal provisions against it as a weapon to unnecessarily harass their male counterparts, the Delhi High Court has observed while quashing an FIR against a man.
The petitioner had moved the court, seeking to quash the FIR lodged against him for allegedly sexually assaulting a woman with whom he was earlier in a relationship. The high court noted that the FIR was nothing but an afterthought.
It said the recordings, WhatsApp chats and statements recorded before the magistrate clearly established that the ingredients of the offence of rape were not met as the man and the woman had consensually agreed to enter into a physical relationship, which was also not based on false promises of marriage.
"It is true that the provision under which the FIR has been lodged is one of the most heinous crimes against women. However, it is also an established fact that some people use it as a weapon to unnecessarily harass the male counterpart," Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said in a recent judgment.
The court said the case was a classic example of how an innocent person faced undue hardships due to the misuse of the penal provision and therefore, it was of the firm view that nothing would come out of the case if the matter was subjected to trial.
It observed that the courts were duty-bound to look into the possibility of the presence of an ulterior motive on the part of the prosecutrix to seek vengeance from the man.
The counsel for the man submitted that the petitioner and the complainant had been in a relationship earlier and had established physical relations with consent.
Due to some discord, the man and the complainant did not marry each other and later, a rape case was lodged against him, the counsel said.
However, the prosecutor opposed the quashing petition and said there were serious allegations against the petitioner and the complaint clearly establishes that he had sexually assaulted the woman.
Considering the material on record, the court noted that the woman was in constant touch with the petitioner and they both used to share details about their life on a daily basis and other personal details.
"It is not disputed by the petitioner that the parties had entered into a physical relationship, however, he claims the same to be consensual. It is also established from the statement recorded under section 164 of the CrPC of the prosecutrix that the parties had taken steps to get married, however, the families did not agree due to the caste factor," it noted.
The court further noted that despite the reservations from the man's family, he was ready to get married to the woman, but she did not show any interest later on and entered into a relationship with another person.
"The WhatsApp chats between the parties also show that the prosecutrix had sent several messages to the petitioner and conveyed information regarding her decision to get married to another person. Therefore, the instant FIR is nothing but an afterthought," it added.
