Son of music baron the late Gulshan Kumar and managing director of T Series Bhushan Kumar has been embroiled in r*pe case since last year. A magistrate court in Mumbai, which passed an order over the case, is now available in the detailed order. Scroll down to know more.
As per reports, a 30-year-old woman, last July, filed a case against Kumar under provisions of the IPC for r*pe and cheating with DN Nagar police. The detailed order issued by the court comes heavily on Kumar.
According to the India Today report, producer Bhushan Kumar, who was accused in a rape case, attempted to contest the matter. However, the court ordered the Mumbai police to investigate the case further and said, “His attempts show his hunger and thirst to get rid of the matter at the earliest.”
The court issued the order after looking into a B Summary report filed by Mumbai Police. The report is submitted only when police found the case as maliciously false or when there is no evidence or prima facie case against the accused Bhushan Kumar following the investigation. The Magistrate court refused to accept the B Summary report and instead asked the police to carry out the investigation further.
The publication also quoted Metropolitan magistrate RR Khan as saying, “She has set the criminal law into motion and she has no grievances in accepting the final report. Her conduct furnishes an assurance that she has misused the provisions of law meant for needy litigants. For her personal gain and advantage, she has crossed every limit that all women have been following for decades.
“From the perusal of the final report, it is apparent that after registration of the FIR, the investigating officers, Police Inspector Anil Mule and Assistant Police Inspector Hasina Shikalkar of DN Nagar Police Station have infringed upon the established directions of law as well as advisories issued by the government by not recording the statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code before a magistrate for reasons best known to them. They have also breached the directions issued by the Supreme Court, by virtue of which it was incumbent on the police to record the statement of the victim before a magistrate.”