Delhi court to decide on police’s cancellation report in POCSO case against Brij Bhushan on Oct 6

The FIR on the accusations made by a minor was filed under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, along with relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code concerning the act of outraging modesty.

New Delhi: A Delhi court on Wednesday deferred pronouncement of order on whether to accept Delhi Police’s cancellation report of sexual harassment case by a minor wrestler against former Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh.

The matter on the police’s cancellation report, which was filed on June 15 and was not opposed by the complainant during the last hearing, has been adjourned to October 6 now.

---

On August 1, the purported victim and her father had stated their satisfaction with the police investigation, showing no objections to the police’s report in the case. They had recorded their statement in an in-chamber proceeding before Additional Sessions Judge Chhavi Kapoor.

On July 4, the court sought the minor wrestler complainant’s response to the police’s cancellation report. The 550-page report filed by police before the Patiala House Court had said that no corroborative evidence was found in allegations by the minor.

“In the POCSO matter, after completion of investigation, we have submitted a police report under section 173 CrPC requesting for a cancellation of the case based upon statements of the complainant, i.e., the father of the victim and the victim herself,” Delhi Police had said.

The FIR on the accusations made by a minor was filed under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, along with relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code concerning the act of outraging modesty. However, the father of the minor wrestler involved in the case had stepped forward and claimed that he filed a “false” complaint of sexual harassment against the WFI chief.

The father has alleged that his actions were driven by anger and frustration over the chief’s perceived biased treatment towards his daughter. A second statement under Section 164 of CrPC of the minor was recorded in the court on June 5 and in the statement, she had not alleged sexual harassment, as per sources.