Gujarat HC says 'not inclined' to quash FIR against Teesta Setalvad in mass grave digging case
Ahmedabad, Jan 2: The Gujarat High Court has orally remarked that after looking at the records, it is "not inclined" to quash the first information report (FIR) registered against social activist Teesta Setalvad in a 2006 case of exhuming bodies of the victims of the 2002 post-Godhra riot.
When the matter came up for hearing on Monday, Justice Sandeep Bhatt told Setalvad's lawyer, "After going through the record, I am not inclined (to grant relief)."
The activist's lawyer said that while it was the court's prerogative, he would try to convince her because no offence was made out against her.
"Ultimately, it is political victimisation (of his client)," he said.
The hearing was then adjourned till January 9 after the government pleader sought accommodation saying that additional advocate general Mitesh Amin would appear in the case.
Setalvad had filed a plea in 2017 after her name was included in the FIR in connection with exhuming 28 bodies from a mass burial site near Pandarwada in Panchmahal district in December 2005.
The activist was accused of conspiring to exhume the bodies after the other accused in the case, including Rais Khan, a former coordinator at her NGO Citizen for Justice and Peace, made a statement against her under section 164 of CrPC.
The Gujarat police had lodged an FIR for creating false evidence, trespassing on a burial place, and outraging religious feelings.
The Lunawada municipality, the complainant in the case, had named Khan as an accused. Khan's statement after his falling out with Setalvad led to her name being added as an accused in the FIR in 2011.
Setalvad, along with former IPS officers RB Sreekumar and Sanjiv Bhatt, were booked by the city crime branch in June 2022 on the charges of fabricating evidence to frame Prime Minister Narendra Modi and others in cases related to the post-Godhra riots.
They were arrested in the case and are currently out on bail.
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.
Where is question of offence when there is consensual relationship? SC asks
New Delhi (PTI): Where is the question of an offence when a relationship is consensual? the Supreme Court on Monday asked a woman who had challenged an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that had quashed an FIR against her former live-in partner in a case of alleged sexual assault on a false promise of marriage.
A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan noted that the woman lived together with the man and also had a child from him.
"Where is the question of offence when there is a consensual relationship? They were living together and she also had a child from him and then there is no marriage and now, she says sexual assault? For 15 years they lived together," Justice Nagarathna remarked.
The woman's counsel told the court that she had lost her husband earlier and was introduced to the accused by her brother-in-law.
The court was also told that the accused had promised to marry her and sexually exploited her.
Justice Nagarathna then asked, "Why did she go and live with him before marriage?"
"She lived with him. She had a child from him. He walks out because there is no marriage bond. Legal bond is not there. He walks out, that is the risk in a live-in relationship. So once he walks out, it does not become a criminal offence," she said.
The woman's lawyer submitted that the accused was already married and had concealed this fact.
"See, if there was marriage, the question of her rights would have been better. She could have filed regarding bigamy. She could have filed for maintenance. She would have got those reliefs. Now since there is no marriage, they live together, this is the risk. They can walk out any day. What do we do?" Justice Nagarathna said.
She suggested that the woman could pursue remedies, such as maintenance for the child, and asked the parties to go for mediation.
"Even if he goes to jail, what will she gain? We can think of some maintenance for the child. Child is now seven years (old). At least, some monetary compensation can be made for the child," Justice Nagarathna said.
The apex court issued a notice in the matter and asked the parties to explore if a settlement could be reached between the petitioner and the accused.
