Posted On by &filed under Top Law News.


He approached the Delhi high court for quashing of an FIR against him for allegedly misbehaving with a woman. Instead, the court slammed Delhi Police constable Bharat Rattan for his “shameless” act of “misusing” his uniform.

Justice Ajit Bharihoke, in his ruling, Friday said: “You (Bharat Rattan) have done a mistake for which you will have to face trial. Therefore, I will not quash the FIR.”

The court said: “Petition will be dismissed or else you withdraw it.”

“How can you misuse your official position? You have got this uniform to help the citizens in need, instead of that you are trying to enjoy the power,” said the court.

“You have misused the state police uniform to assault a women, which is really very shameless,” said Justice Bharihoke, adding that he had also involved one of his friends in the misdeed.

Accordingly, the petitioner withdrew his plea to quash the FIR against them.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Delhi Police constable Bharat Rattan, posted at Model Town police station. Rattan had pleaded for quashing an FIR under section 354 IPC (criminal force to any woman) lodged against him by a woman, with whom Rattan and his friend (Kapil Sharma) misbehaved while she was returning home at around 9.45 pm in Kingsway Camp in north Delhi area last year.

“The two persons stopped her and misbehaved with her, one was in police uniform and other was in civil uniform. However, when she resisted, the duo fled in their car in north Delhi area,” said the woman in her complaint.

The woman is an employee of Bank of Maharashtra.

The two were arrested on March 15, 2010 on the complaint, but were released on bail.

Meanwhile, Rattan was dismissed from service when a chargesheet was filed against him but was reinstated on Aug 23, 2010.

Meanwhile, the woman felt sympathy for the man as he was young and had a family to look after, therefore she agreed to a compromise and to quash the FIR.

Accordingly, Rattan and his friend approached Delhi High Court on March 14. But the court has refused to quash the FIR


Leave a Reply

Be the First to Comment!

Notify of
avatar
wpDiscuz