BOMBAY TIMES (April 1, 2016)
In the wake of Hrithik Roshan's FIR against the imposter who used a fake email id and allegedly interacted with Kangana Ranaut, the actress and her sister Rangoli have been asked by the Cyber Crime Cell to record their statements. The actress's lawyer Rizwan Siddiquee has reacted strongly and issued a statement. A part of it stated, “No police officer can summon my client Ms. Kangana Ranaut or her sister Ms. Rangoli to any police station to record their statement as a witness under Section 160 of CRPC. The witness summons sent to my client and her sister by the police officer is patently illegal, as no woman can ever be called to the police station to record their statements as per the provisions of law.“
The lawyer explains that, "Witness summons can only be issued by a magistrate or a judge. Also, the recording to statement should be done in the court of law, as statements recorded at police stations don't hold much value. In this case, under Section 160 of CRPC - “Under this section no male person under the age of 15 years or above the age of 65 years or a woman or a mentally or physically disabled person shall be required to attend at any place other than the place in which such male person or woman resides to record a statement or for questioning. Nonetheless, my client who is shown to be a victim as per the claims of Mr. Hrithik Roshan has herself willingly expressed her desire to co-operate with the officers in accordance to the provisions of law, as well as in her reply to the Summons she has duly reserved her rights to file an appropriate criminal complaint against Mr. Hrithik Roshan and his associates for hacking two of her email accounts, which includes the email from which Mr. Hrithik Roshan admittedly claims to have personally received about 1,439 emails from my client on his correct email id as well the email from which my client was communicating with the alleged imposter.“
Only time will tell how will this case end.
------------------------------
Kangana's lawyer takes cops to task over summons
Has fired off a reply to them arguing that it is 'illegal' and has pointed to lots of discrepancies in Hrithik Roshan's accusations against his client
Roshmila Bhattacharya (MUMBAI MIRROR; April 1, 2016)
After opting to maintain a "dignified silence" in his public face-off with his Krrish 3 co-star, Kangana Ranaut, Hrithik Roshan recently lodged a FIR (First Information Report) with Mumbai's Cyber Crime Cell, naming the actress as the person who was interacting with his imposter who'd allegedly created a fake email ID to communicate with the 42-year-old actor's 'fans'.
Following the complaint, the Bandra-Kurla Complex police station issued a 'summons' in a letter dated March 25, to the 28-year-old actress and her manager-sister, Rangoli "demanding their presence" on March 28 or within seven days from the date of receipt of the summons.
Kangana's lawyer, Rizwan Siddiquee, has fired off a reply (a copy of which is with Mirror) to the summons, stating, "No police officer can summon my client Ms Kangana Ranaut or her sister Ms Rangoli to any police station to record their statement as a witness under Section 160 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973, as also the amended Section 160 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013."
Siddiquee asserted that the witness summons sent to Kangana and Rangoli "is absolutely illegal" as it openly contravenes the provisions of the law and is a flagrant misuse of power and position. Pointing to the old Section 160 and Section 160 A of the Indian Penal Code, he argued that the investigative officer can order a person in writing to present himself/herself to his or any adjoining police station for information if acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, "provided that no male person under the age of fifteen years or above the age of sixty-five years or a woman or a mentally or physically disabled person shall be required to attend at any place other than the place in which such male person or woman resides". He added that the state government, under Sub-Section (1), has given the police officer the right to cover the conveyance expenses of the witness.
Demanding an immediate withdrawal of the summons, the lawyer reminded that under the provisions of the law, if a public servant knowingly disobeys it or fails to record information given to him, he can be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than six months and one which could extend to two years. He is also liable to pay a fine.
Having clarified the legal position, Siddiquee argued that Kangana herself is a victim of email hacking by Hrithik or people working at his behest. He maintained that while his client has reserved her rights to file an appropriate criminal complaint against the actor, she seeks to obtain a copy of the complaint and the statement given to the police by the actor under CFR. No. 78/16, so that she can, to the best of her ability, provide the required assistance as per the provisions of the law. He demanded certified copies of the complaint under Section 76 of Indian Evidence Act 1872.
In his statement, Siddiquee has also accused Hrithik and his associates of hacking two of Kangana's email accounts, which includes the account from which the actor admittedly claims to have received about 1439 emails from her on his correct email ID as well as the email ID from which she was communicating with the alleged imposter. He pointed out that Hrithik admittedly had full knowledge of the so-called imposter in May 2014 but did not take any action for seven months. It was only in December 2014 that he filed an informal complaint with the Cyber Cell "with full knowledge that no investigation shall be carried out by the police on an informal complaint".
The lawyer argued that during the time, Hrithik admittedly started receiving mails from his client on his correct email ID for more than a year but did not block them for reasons best known to him. He wondered why the actor hadn't prudently blocked the one-way communication.
He further reiterated that Hrithik had then sent a defamation notice to Kangana stating that she had defamed him by referring to him as "silly ex" in one of her interviews. He claimed that he did not know Kangana socially but received 50 emails a day from her with the actress using his name to gain publicity.
Dismissing this as "blatant lies" Siddiquee questioned that if Hrithik did not know Kangana socially, then "how was he attending my client's private birthday party with his entire family and my client was attending his party besides his sister's and his father's birthday party as well". He also questioned the basis of sending a defamation notice as no case for defamation was made out in the notice.
In conclusion, he averred that while Hrithik was required to act on the notice Kangana had sent him within seven days of receiving it on March 1, he has cleverly chosen to maintain a "dignified silence" and conveniently tried to divert media attention by filing a belated FIR after about two years against a socalled imposter. This, he believes, is an attempt to deviate from the main subject of having criminally threatened and intimidated her without any provocation or good reason. "As a matter of fact it is my client who has actually suffered and has yet maintained a dignified silence so far," he signed off.
The lawyer explains that, "Witness summons can only be issued by a magistrate or a judge. Also, the recording to statement should be done in the court of law, as statements recorded at police stations don't hold much value. In this case, under Section 160 of CRPC - “Under this section no male person under the age of 15 years or above the age of 65 years or a woman or a mentally or physically disabled person shall be required to attend at any place other than the place in which such male person or woman resides to record a statement or for questioning. Nonetheless, my client who is shown to be a victim as per the claims of Mr. Hrithik Roshan has herself willingly expressed her desire to co-operate with the officers in accordance to the provisions of law, as well as in her reply to the Summons she has duly reserved her rights to file an appropriate criminal complaint against Mr. Hrithik Roshan and his associates for hacking two of her email accounts, which includes the email from which Mr. Hrithik Roshan admittedly claims to have personally received about 1,439 emails from my client on his correct email id as well the email from which my client was communicating with the alleged imposter.“
Only time will tell how will this case end.
------------------------------
Kangana's lawyer takes cops to task over summons
Has fired off a reply to them arguing that it is 'illegal' and has pointed to lots of discrepancies in Hrithik Roshan's accusations against his client
Roshmila Bhattacharya (MUMBAI MIRROR; April 1, 2016)
After opting to maintain a "dignified silence" in his public face-off with his Krrish 3 co-star, Kangana Ranaut, Hrithik Roshan recently lodged a FIR (First Information Report) with Mumbai's Cyber Crime Cell, naming the actress as the person who was interacting with his imposter who'd allegedly created a fake email ID to communicate with the 42-year-old actor's 'fans'.
Following the complaint, the Bandra-Kurla Complex police station issued a 'summons' in a letter dated March 25, to the 28-year-old actress and her manager-sister, Rangoli "demanding their presence" on March 28 or within seven days from the date of receipt of the summons.
Kangana's lawyer, Rizwan Siddiquee, has fired off a reply (a copy of which is with Mirror) to the summons, stating, "No police officer can summon my client Ms Kangana Ranaut or her sister Ms Rangoli to any police station to record their statement as a witness under Section 160 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973, as also the amended Section 160 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013."
Siddiquee asserted that the witness summons sent to Kangana and Rangoli "is absolutely illegal" as it openly contravenes the provisions of the law and is a flagrant misuse of power and position. Pointing to the old Section 160 and Section 160 A of the Indian Penal Code, he argued that the investigative officer can order a person in writing to present himself/herself to his or any adjoining police station for information if acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, "provided that no male person under the age of fifteen years or above the age of sixty-five years or a woman or a mentally or physically disabled person shall be required to attend at any place other than the place in which such male person or woman resides". He added that the state government, under Sub-Section (1), has given the police officer the right to cover the conveyance expenses of the witness.
Demanding an immediate withdrawal of the summons, the lawyer reminded that under the provisions of the law, if a public servant knowingly disobeys it or fails to record information given to him, he can be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than six months and one which could extend to two years. He is also liable to pay a fine.
Having clarified the legal position, Siddiquee argued that Kangana herself is a victim of email hacking by Hrithik or people working at his behest. He maintained that while his client has reserved her rights to file an appropriate criminal complaint against the actor, she seeks to obtain a copy of the complaint and the statement given to the police by the actor under CFR. No. 78/16, so that she can, to the best of her ability, provide the required assistance as per the provisions of the law. He demanded certified copies of the complaint under Section 76 of Indian Evidence Act 1872.
In his statement, Siddiquee has also accused Hrithik and his associates of hacking two of Kangana's email accounts, which includes the account from which the actor admittedly claims to have received about 1439 emails from her on his correct email ID as well as the email ID from which she was communicating with the alleged imposter. He pointed out that Hrithik admittedly had full knowledge of the so-called imposter in May 2014 but did not take any action for seven months. It was only in December 2014 that he filed an informal complaint with the Cyber Cell "with full knowledge that no investigation shall be carried out by the police on an informal complaint".
The lawyer argued that during the time, Hrithik admittedly started receiving mails from his client on his correct email ID for more than a year but did not block them for reasons best known to him. He wondered why the actor hadn't prudently blocked the one-way communication.
He further reiterated that Hrithik had then sent a defamation notice to Kangana stating that she had defamed him by referring to him as "silly ex" in one of her interviews. He claimed that he did not know Kangana socially but received 50 emails a day from her with the actress using his name to gain publicity.
Dismissing this as "blatant lies" Siddiquee questioned that if Hrithik did not know Kangana socially, then "how was he attending my client's private birthday party with his entire family and my client was attending his party besides his sister's and his father's birthday party as well". He also questioned the basis of sending a defamation notice as no case for defamation was made out in the notice.
In conclusion, he averred that while Hrithik was required to act on the notice Kangana had sent him within seven days of receiving it on March 1, he has cleverly chosen to maintain a "dignified silence" and conveniently tried to divert media attention by filing a belated FIR after about two years against a socalled imposter. This, he believes, is an attempt to deviate from the main subject of having criminally threatened and intimidated her without any provocation or good reason. "As a matter of fact it is my client who has actually suffered and has yet maintained a dignified silence so far," he signed off.