A magistrate’s court in Bombay recently rejected the closure report submitted in a rape case against Bhushan Kumar. The court also ordered action against two investigating officers while observing that legal aspects were compromised during the probe.

An actress had filed a complaint against Bhushan in July 2021 for offences relating to rape, cheating and criminal intimidation. She had alleged that she was sexually abused over three years by Bhushan Kumar on false promises of offering lucrative employment.

The court on April 1 rejected the B Summary report. A copy of the detailed order was made available on April 16. A B Summary report is filed when the police find a case to be false or when there is no evidence. The court observed that after registration of the offence, the investigating officers neither attempted to arrest the accused nor did the accused approach for pre-arrest bail. It added that the cops had not even recorded the actress’ statement before the magistrate.

The court further observed that Bhushan Kumar’s interference by way of opposing the protest petition filed against the B Summary report, by a witness in the case, was unfortunate, unethical and unjustified. It said that Bhushan Kumar had no grounds to address the court. Further, the court ordered legal action against the actress who claimed before the court that she had made the rape allegations due to a misunderstanding. The magistrate said that her conduct showed that she had misused provisions of law which were meant for needy litigants.

The court also decried the plea filed by witness Malikarjun Pujari to oppose the police’s closure report. It explained that Pujari had crossed his limits by intervening.

The court asked the DCP of Zone IX to oversee the police investigations. It directed the prosecution to take recourse to legal action against the cops for infringement of established process of law. The magistrate summed up by saying, “…To bring the truth behind the alleged heinous crime of rape, there are available evidences which are required to be collected, therefore further investigation in this matter appears to be very essential.”