The court was hearing a complaint filed by a woman alleging that she was raped, illegally confined and threatened by the accused persons. The court had then called for a status report from the police.
During the first hearing in the court, the woman sought to withdraw her complaint without giving any reason, which prompted the court to direct the police to assess the threat perception and provide necessary security to her.
On March 23, the additional DCP of north district filed a report stating that the woman could not be contacted as she was not found residing at her given address and her mobile phone was also switched off.
The court, however, noted that on the same day, another sub-inspector filed a separate report before it stating that the woman gave a written statement to him claiming that she had given the complaint under some pressure and her signatures were taken on a blank paper to falsely implicate the accused.
When she came to know that she was being misused, she moved an application in the court to stop legal proceedings.
The court noted that the reports filed by the two police officials were “absolutely contradictory”.
“In his report, the additional DCP is informing the court that the complainant is not traceable, whereas to the contrary the sub inspector recorded the hand-written statement of the complainant and placed it before the court.
“It is not understood that when the complainant was traceable, why threat assessment was not done as directed by the court on March 22,” the magistrate said in its order.
The court said it was clear that the conduct on the part of the two officials has remained “negligent”.