Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya Harasses Us Once Again

On 18.11.2014 we five sisters had been arrested by the Pondicherry Police under the directions given by Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya and were released on bail on the condition that we appear before him on 02.12.2014. With great difficulty we managed to make basic arrangements and appeared before Justice Mukhopadhaya on 02.12.2014 and this is what transpired.

When our case was called on 02.12.2014 trustees’ lawyer Sanjay Parekh and on the other side Nivedita and myself appeared before Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya. As soon as we stood before him, Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya took our file and threw it aside saying that we sisters did not want him to sit on judgment for the contempt petition. He then went on to falsely accuse us that we had some lawyer hailing from Bihar who knew his family and who had written a letter against him on our behalf seeking some kind of a vengeance against him. He then admitted that he had visited Pondicherry Ashram 4 times, including the time as mentioned in the letter, but no one had ever told him anything. However since he was to retire in two months time he did not want any black spot of professional misconduct on his career and so he did not want to take up the matter on professional ethics.

When Justice Mukhopadhaya also stated that the letter accused him that his children were practicing in the Supreme Court, one of the lawyers supported him by saying that he knew of no such persons. Justice Mukhopadhaya then admitted that it was a fact that his children were practicing in the Supreme Court and not many people knew about it.

By his admission Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya not only proved his already indulged in professional misconduct, by inference he also admitted having favored the trustees throughout the SLP proceedings and the contempt proceedings and exposed their mutually beneficial relationship either through his children or by his own self.

Thereafter Sanjay Parekh, as instructed by Matriprasad and Devdip Ganguly (trustees’ henchmen), complained to Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya that we had started a website wherein we were accusing many other judges of having visited the Ashram, even the Chief Justice of Supreme Court. I responded by saying that it was true since I had myself seen these judges with my very own eyes enjoying the hospitality of the trustees and being entertained by Matriparasad and other trustees’ sycophants.

I then told Justice Muphopadhaya that a copy of the letter he was referring to had been sent to us also by RPAD and I had filed the same as part of our counter in the contempt petition. The letter had been sent by some citizens of a corruption free society. At this Justice Mukhopadhaya accused me of being a member of corrupt society. I strongly retorted that it was he who was corrupt and a member of corrupt society, illegally helping the trustees in all their wrongdoings for personal gain and glory, and that I was a citizen of a corruption free society and led an upright life.

Sanjay Parekh once again tried to belittle us by uttering nonsense against our character and how we were in the habit of filing false complaints. I vehemently denied his allegations stating that the contents of the blog spoke the truth for themselves and no amount of mudslinging would wash off the trustees’ misdeeds.

However Justice Mukhopadhaya was not inclined to give us an opportunity to be heard. I was really angry and I shouted at him that after issuing bailable arrest warrant, after having us arrested and humiliated, he cannot now deny us an opportunity to be heard and simply wash off his hands from the case on the ground that he fears black spot on his career if he continues to sit on this case. But all my heated submissions fell on deaf ears. He simply refused to listen to us.

I also requested the matter to be posted in a day or two since we were leaving by 04.12.2014 evening and that we could not prolong our stay since we had appeared at the Supreme Court with great difficulty and were facing great hardship. Justice Mukhopadhaya laughingly belittled our submission saying that we were facing no hardship and he knew fully well the life we led in the Ashram was one of comfort and decadence. We were furious and categorically informed him that he knew nothing of the hell we were going through because of the trustees’ highhandedness which they were wielding because of the support of corrupt judges likes him.

I then requested him to receive our counter in the contempt petition but he arrogantly threw away our file and called for the next case to be heard. He compounded the miscarriage of justice by even failing to receive our counter knowing fully well that we would not be able to appear whenever our case was next listed.

As the next item was called the lawyers of the other cases were shooing us away so that they could be heard and in the face of such open hostility shown to us by Justice Mukhopadhaya, insulting him by showing him our back we began to move away. Then fury at the injustice and harassment caused by Justice Mukhopadhaya overtook us and both Nivedita and myself began enumerating loudly the manner by which the trustees and these corrupt judges were victimizing us on false grounds - first that in a sexual harassment case the judges had issued eviction proceedings, second that even when there was no mention on suit premises Justice Mukhopadhaya and Gogoi had issued eviction proceedings. We also showed the pornographic chits received by us and asked all present in the court hall whether justice was being given to us. One of the lawyers reprimanded us by saying that this is not the way to behave to which I retorted that is this the way supreme court renders justice. For five minutes we let off steam in this manner exposing and highlighting the various misdeeds of the trustees who were helped by these corrupt judges and then we left the court hall with dignity.

Three Cheers for Pondicherry Police!!!

Order dated 13.10.2014 passed at Hon’ble Supreme Court by Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Justice Bobde directing the Pondicherry Police to arrest the five sisters has been executed. This bailable arrest warrant had been issued in spite of the Registrar of the Supreme Court as well as the Chief Justice of India and Justice Mukhopadhaya having received letter from us stating that we were unable to appear since we had no means to bear the expenses of travel and lodging and food. This order of bailable arrest was totally insensitive and in gross violation of principles of natural justice. It also clearly indicated the prejudice and inclination of the judges in favor of the Ashram trustees.

On 18.11.2014, between 1.00-2.00 p.m. the Pondicherry Police headed by Mr. Ravikumar, SP (North), came with this whole team to Ambabhikshu House, wherein we sisters are residing, to execute the arrest warrant issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in connection to an alleged contempt of court. He was accompanied by women police personnel who arrested us and took us to the ‘All Women Police Station’. There we were shown the order and explained its consequences. After due formalities were completed we were each issued a 'Memo of Arrest' and allowed to leave the police station on the surety of two well-wishers. Thank you both, we are deeply indebted and grateful for the risks you have taken on our behalf to protect us and safeguard our well-being and interests.

We also take this opportunity to sincerely thank Mr. Ravikumar, SP (North), and his whole team of police personnel who treated us with extreme consideration and extended all possible help to facilitate the smooth execution of the procedure. This is the first time we have received such goodwill from the police and we are extremely grateful for the same. We have also assured Mr. Ravikumar that we shall make all possible efforts to present ourselves on 02.12.2014 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Many Thanks to His Excellency, Sri Ravishankar Prasad-ji

Our case is a case in point where judges of Supreme Court of India – Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Justice R. Gogoi – have passed an inexecutable order on 29.04.2014. They have directed us to vacate “suit premises” in a case not pertaining to dispute of property and where no schedule of property has been mentioned. Moreover, to add insult to the injury, Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Justice Bobde have now found us guilty of contempt in the contempt proceedings filed by trustees against us and have even issued arrest warrant against we five sisters for non-compliance. This warrant has as yet to reach the hands of the Pondicherry police for execution.

Assuming that the judges and the trustees of the Ashram feel that the accommodation wherein we are presently residing is the property we sisters ought to vacate, if we moved into any other Ashram property i.e. Ashram Main Building or Nanteuil or Golconde Guest House, etc. does it tantamount to obedience? Obviously not, because the trustees, with the help of these corrupt judges, are trying to throw us out of the Ashram and that includes all the properties belonging either to the Ashram or its various trusts within trusts.

Thankfully for us, we had also marked copies of our letter dated 10.06.2014 and reminder dated 17.07.2014 to the Hon’ble Minister of Law and Justice, Sri Ravishankar Prasad-ji. And to our greatest surprise, close on the heels of the directions issued by the Home Ministry, on 30.10.2014 we have received a letter from the Ministry of Justice which speaks volumes for itself without saying anything. I hope the Supreme Court, headed by and consisting of the three musketeer bench – Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Justice R. Gogoi and Justice Bobde – comes up with suitable answers.

This letter is reproduced hereunder.

Arrest Warrant not yet Received informs Pondicherry Police

The last weekend in the “Times of India” Bosco Dominque reported that arrest warrant has been issued against we five sisters for disobeying the Supreme Court Order. He reports that and I quote

“The court refused to buy the argument of the sisters that they were ready to appear before it but had no money to pay for their tickets, boarding and lodging.”

Was Bosco present in the Supreme Court or is he simply vomiting the cock-and-bull story of the trustees and indulging in one side reporting? It is also pertinent to note that the trustees are not highlighting the fact that Jayashree was assaulted, an event accepted by them in their various court pleadings. Bosco incorrectly reports the beginning of litigation only from 2002 after Mr.Menon’s enquiry was initiated and completed. But the truth is that our litigation began in 2001 because Jayashree was assaulted by Krishna Chandra (a non-ashramite) and because we protested since no relief was given to her. The trustees rewarded the assaulter as well as his sister by inducting them as inmates, whereas we have been facing 14 years of harassment, victimization, sexual harassment and various other indignities. What a great sense of justice of the trustees!

Anyhow after reading this news item, on 20/10/2014 Arunashri and I met the IGP of Pondicherry to learn about the arrest procedures. IGP Mr. Praveer Ranjan was kind enough to give us an audience. When we asked him about the arrest procedure he directed us to his secretary Mr. Rajashankar, who informed us that till date no arrest warrant has as yet been received by the police. He informed us that in the absence of the warrant it was difficult to say what is expected of the police. But he assured us that if arrest is made the procedure will be followed as per the directions issued and that no arrest will be made after 6 pm.

I reiterate the fact that we sisters have not disobeyed the Supreme Court Order dated 29.04.2014 passed in S.L.P.No.27620/2012 by Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Justice R. Gogoi and no contempt can be held against us since their order directs us to vacate ‘suit premises’ in a case where there is no suit mentioned property. How can eviction be ordered in a suit which challenges the malafide report fabricated by the trustees in order to hush up our complaints of sexual harassment? This tantamounts to further victimization of the victims especially because some of our complaints form part of W.P.No.695/2014 pending before the Chief Justice of India and also because the case is being tried for the past four years. It seems as if the Supreme Court is incapable of rendering justice to the detriment of the victims.

Let us wait and watch what the future holds for us.

Justice - Blind or Blindfolded?

At last yesterday the Order passed by Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya has been put up on the Supreme Court website. The Order goes thus

“In spite of service of notice respondents have not filed affidavit nor appeared in the Court. In the circumstances, we issue bailable warrant against alleged contemnor…”

The beginning of the Order indicates

“(With office report)”

Now if you remember the Office Order mentioned that they have received our letter wherein we have expressed our inability to appear since we have no means and that our plight ought to be considered. (For details see posting of 14.10.2014)

Now isn’t it surprising that even when this letter has been put up before Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Justice S.A. Bobde (a fresh Judge), they fail to pay attention to it and mention that we have failed to appear and hence to issue bailable warrant. I can understand Justice Mukhopadhaya’s stance but what happened to Justice Bobde? Or is Justice Bobde too scared to stand up for the truth and correct the wrongdoing of his senior? 

I am speechlessly stupefied at the blatant injustice and miscarriage of justice happening at the Supreme Court. Has justice become blind or blindfolded to cater to selfish interests?

Also pertinent to point out is when we have no resources to pay for appearing before the Supreme Court, how are we supposed to pay for the bailable warrant? Can someone, any person in authority please tell me how we are supposed to achieve this feat? And what happens when we fail to pay the bail after we are arrested? Do we rot in jail or are we supposed to be die of hunger-strike which we shall take recourse to if we are detained?

It seems the arrest warrant has not yet reached the SP of Pondicherry. We have to take one step at a time and see what unfolds and how it unfolds. The Order directing for our arrest is produced below.

The Root Cause and Synopsis of Fourteen Years of Litigation

Jayashree’s brutal assault on 09.01.2001 and our persistent demand for justice from the trustees resulted in 14 years of litigation starting from 23.03.2001 till date. It is interesting to note the manner in which Krishna Chandra, who had assaulted Jayashree, and even his sister were greatly rewarded by the trustees. After undergoing a short probation period they were made ashramites and presently enjoy all the facilities and amenities of the Ashram but we are being denied the same. This is spiritual justice so claim the unspiritual power-hungry trustees.

From 09.01.2001 for more than two months we were persistent in our demand for justice for Jayashree and patiently waited for the trustees to take action to that effect. Instead we came to know that the trustees were busy trying to suppress the assault on Jayashree by creating false circumstantial evidence in order to declare her to be a mental case. Hemlata threatened to go to the police and lodge a complaint on her sister’s behalf. Thus began a series of court cases. 

1. O.S. No.215/2001 (I Additional District Munsif at Pondicherry) – Hemlata vs. SAAT and its trustees – challenging the attempted illegal expulsion by the trustees. Suit is summarily terminated by the Madras High Court on 13.09.2002.
2. O.S. No.253/2001 (I Additional District Munsif at Pondicherry) – Jayashree, Arunashri, Rajyashri, Nivedita Vs. SAAT and its trustees – challenging the illegal show cause notice dated 02.04.2001. Suit is dismissed on 09.03.2007.
3. S.T.R. No.864/2001 (Judicial Magistrate I at Pondicherry) – Hemlata vs. Harikant Patel, Veda Prakash Johar, Manoj Das Gupta, Dilip Datta, Albert Paterl, Krishna Belliappa, Manjunath, Satyanarayanamurthy, - filed for defamation against the above-named accused persons. Magistrate visited Sri Aurobindo Ashram with Matriprasad and enjoyed the hospitality of the trustees. He was totally comprised and he wrongly acquitted the accused on 23.11.2004
4. C.R.P. No. 2230/2001 & No. 2534/2001 in O.S.No.253/2001 (Madras High Court) – two revisions filed by sisters and the trustees against each other challenging different portions of the order passed in I.A. No.935/2001 in O.S. No.253/2001. Common order was passed on 29.10.2001 disposing off both the CRPs.
5. C.R.P. No.787/2002 (Madras High Court) – SAAT and its trustees vs. Hemlata – trustees challenge the order passed in I.A. No. 2672/2001 in O.S. No.215/2001. Since the trustees had claimed that prior to expelling Hemlata they had conducted an “in camera enquiry”, the Hon’ble Trial Court had not permitted the trustees to constitute a second enquiry against her by appointing Suresh Chandra De as enquiry officer. So they filed this CRP under Article 227 of the Constitution. Order passed on 13.09.2002 terminating O.S. No.215/2001 because trustees give undertaking of restoring all facilities as inmate to Hemlata. Mr. Menon is appointed as the enquiry officer by the High Court of Madras. He is the third enquiry officer in a third enquiry-proceedings for the same alleged offence of misconduct.
6. Contempt No.718/2002 (Madras High Court) - SAAT and its trustees vs. 4 sisters - trustees file a contempt proceedings against five sisters. They have appointed Suresh Chandra De (IPS) as enquiry officer. We challenge his appointment enquiry at Pondicherry. Orders passed on 24.01.2003 stating no contempt of court committed by sisters.
7. O.S. No.668/2002 (I Additional District Munsif at Pondicherry) – Hemlata vs. SAAT and its trustees – challenging the impugned report of Mr. Menon, the third enquiry officer. Trial underway for 4 years. Trustees have paid two times fine of Rs.2,000/- each for failing to conduct the trial.
8. F.I.R. No.213/2004 resulting in S.T.R. No.7919/2004 (Judicial Magistrate II at Pondicherry) – Pondicherry police (on behalf of Arunashri) vs. Girish Panda and others. The FIR was registered for the sexual harassment and attempt to molestation faced by Arunashri. We were never called to give evidence in the case. Accused were acquitted without a trial. No order copy was furnished to us by the police or from the JM II court.
9. O.S. No.409/2005 (Principal District Munsif at Pondicherry) – five sisters vs. SAAT and its trustees – challenging the impugned report of Mr. A.V. Nagarajan. This enquiry was constituted wrongly and with a malafide intention to thwart, suppress and frustrate our efforts to get justice for the sexual harassment faced by us. Trial underway for 4 years. Trustees have paid two times fine of Rs.2,000/- each for failing to conduct the trial.
10. C.M.A. No.7/2005 (Principal Sub Judge at Pondicherry) – SAAT and its trustees vs. Hemlata – trustees challenge the order passed in interim petition in I.A. No.2937/2002 in O.S. No.668/2002 granting Hemlata status quo as an inmate of Ashram and which restrains the trustees from denying, depriving and stopping all the facilities as provided to every inmate. Trustees' appeal dismissed on 30.01.2007.
11. C.M.A. No.35/2005 (Principal Sub Judge at Pondicherry) – SAAT and its trustees vs. five sisters – trustees challenge the order passed in interim petition in I.A. No.1500/2005 in O.S. No.409/2005 granting all five sisters status quo as inmates of Ashram and restrains the trustees from denying, depriving and stopping all the facilities as provided to every inmate.Trustees' appeal dismissed on 30.01.2007
12. Cr.Appeal No.477/2005 (Madras High Court) – Hemlata vs. Veda Prakash Johar, Manoj Das Gupta, Dilip Datta, Albert Paterl, Krishna Belliappa, Manjunath, Satyanarayanamurthy – challenging the order of acquittal passed in S.T.R. No.864/2001 by JM I, Pondicherry. Criminal Appeal is still pending.
13. A.S. No.24/2007 (Principal Sub Judge at Pondicherry) - four sisters Vs. SAAT and its trustees - sisters file appeal against the order 09.03.2007 dismissing O.S. No.253/2001. Orders passed on 09.04.2010 dismissing our appeal.
14. T.O.P. No.85/2007 (Principal District Judge) – Hemlata vs. SAAT and its trustees – transfer petition filed by Hemlata for conducting a joint trial of O.S. No.668/2002 and O.S. No.409/2005. TOP allowed on 23.09.2008 permitting joint trial. Trustees pay fine for the first time of Rs.375/-.
15. C.R.P. No.3037/2007 (Madras High Court) – SAAT and its trustees vs. Hemlata – trustees challenge the order passed in C.M.A. No.7/2005 passed by PSJ, Pondicherry which confirmed the order passed in I.A. No.2937/2002 in O.S.No.668/2002 granting Hemlata status quo as an inmate of Ashram and which restrained the trustees from denying, depriving and stopping all the facilities as provided to every inmate. Order passed on 19.12.2008 adopting the order passed in C.R.P. No.3314/2007.
16. C.R.P.No.3314/2007 (Madras High Court) – SAAT and its trustees vs. five sisters – trustees challenge the order passed in C.M.A. No.35/2005 passed by PSJ, Pondicherry which confirmed the order passed in I.A. No.1500/2005 in O.S.No.409/2005 granting Hemlata status quo as an inmate of Ashram and which restrained the trustees from denying, depriving and stopping all the facilities as provided to every inmate. Order dated 29.01.2008 is passed.
17. M.P. No.1/2008 in C.R.P.No.3314/2007 (Madras High Court) – SAAT and its trustees vs. five sisters – trustees seek to modify the Order dated 29.01.2008 passed in C.R.P. No.3314/2007 under the guise of clarification. Order dated 04.08.2008 is passed.
18. C.R.P. No.3759/2008 – (Madras High Court) – SAAT and its trustees vs. Hemlata – trustees challenge the order passed in T.O.P. No.85/2007 for conducting joint trial. On 28.11.2008 High Court passed an order directing to conduct simultaneous trial in O.S. No.668/2002 and O.S. No.409/2005. They have to be tried separately without one prejudicing the other.
19. M.P. No.2/2008 in C.R.P.No.3314/2007 (Madras High Court) – SAAT and its trustees vs. five sisters –Order dated 04.08.2008 passed in M.P. No.1/2008 in C.R.P. No.3314/2007 is a modified version of the order passed 29.01.2008 passed in C.R.P. No.3314/2007 under the guise of a clarification. For a second time trustees seek to modify to their convenience the high court order under the guise of clarification. Order dated 21.06.2010 is passed.
20. F.I.R. No.272/2010 (Chief Judicial Magistrate at Pondicherry) – Jayashree vs. Pondicherry Police – for getting directions to register an FIR for the assault denial of food which occurred on 22.07.2010 at Ashram Dining Room.
21. F.I.R. No.273/2010 (Chief Judicial Magistrate at Pondicherry) – Hemlata vs. Pondicherry Police – for getting directions to register an FIR for the assault denial of food which occurred on 22.07.2010 at Ashram Dining Room.
22. C.R.P. No.4219/2010 – SAAT and its trustees vs. five sisters – trustees challenge interim order passed in I.A. No.2094/2010 restoring food and all the basic amenities and facilities of the Ashram. On 22.07.2010 the trustees had forcibly and illegally implemented the exparte Order dated 21.06.2010 passed in M.P. No.2/2008 in C.R.P. No.3314/2007 and stopped our food and all facilities as inmates. Order dated 03.08.2012 is passed.
23. Contempt Petition No.1483/2010 (Madras High Court) – SAAT and its trustees vs. five sisters – trustees file contempt proceedings against us because we did not follow the unexecutable order dated 21.06.2010 since the third party prevented its execution. No contempt is held.
24. S.L.P. No.27620/2012 (Supreme Court) – five sisters vs. SAAT and its trustees – we challenge the order dated 03.08.2012 passed in C.R.P. No.4216/2010. Stay is granted on --- by Justice Gokhale and Justice Nijjar. Unexecutable final orders are passed under two minutes by Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Justice Ranjan Gogoi on 29.04.2014 who do not even give us an opportunity to be heard.
25. Contempt No.395/2014 (Supreme Court) – SAAT and its trustees vs. five sisters – Trustees file contempt against five sisters for not following an unexecutable order dated 29.04.2014 passed by Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Justice Ranjan Gogoi. Ironically, after visiting the Ashram and enjoying the hospitality of the trustees and … Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya issues arrest warrant against the five sisters in spite of having gone through our letter where we express our inability to appear before the court because we have no means.

Arrest Warrant Issued by Supreme Court

Yet another mischief played by the Trustees of Ashram???!!!

On the display board of the Supreme Court, through the internet one can track the cases being heard in the court as listed in the final list. However today for about 20 minutes there was no display board all the courts were in session.

Justice Sudhanshu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, who ought to have recused himself from hearing the contempt proceedings, since he enjoyed the hospitality of the Ashram Trustees, not only failed to take into account our letter but he has also issued warrant of arrest against we five sisters. 

Prophecy of Bosco Dominique, reporter of 'Times of India', comes true… Or was it a prophecy?

News-item Reporting Arrest

Trustees of Ashram bring out an article in ‘Times of India’ written by Bosco Dominique. We have repeatedly experienced that he and Debjani Datta, two local reporters of English dailies, only do one side reporting. Our complaints to this effect have not been entertained by the newspapers’ management. Is one sided reporting correct? IF NO, then these reporters must be banned by the Press Trust of India because of wrong reporting with the intention of misguiding and misrepresenting to the public. 

Anyways, Bosco Dominique reports that we five sisters are going to be arrested. Let us wait and see what happens.

Our Letter to newly appointed Chief Justice Of India

We have written to the newly sworn in Chief Justice of India Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu. We hope that he can bring some sense and order, especially in Justice Mukhopadhaya’s head, who has not only wrongly passed orders for eviction in a case not pertaining to property but relating to sexual harassment, but who having enjoyed the hospitality of the trustees is under the circumstances duty-bound to recuse himself from the contempt proceedings.

Our letter sent by RPAD is produced below, which highlights various grave miscarriages of justice caused by Supreme Court judges.

SOS-Letter faxed to Hon'ble Home Minister

We sent our representation to the Hon’ble Home Minister by fax. Produced below wherein we have expressed explicitly our desire not to bow down to injustices heaped upon us and valiantly fight through till death.

In a case where issues of sexual harassment has been challenged, eviction notice is ordered by the Supreme Court. This just goes to show how the judges do not read the papers and are not competent to hold the office they are responsible for.

Police Dictates Complaint for Registering FIR

On 04.08.2004 Arunashri wrote a letter to Managing Trustee informing him about the molestation and their failure to protect her. She then sent a complaint on 05.08.2004 to the Pondicherry Police through RPAD. This complaint has been totally denied by the police but we have A/D Card to prove that the police did receive this complaint but failed to act. All of us were being continually harassed and even our various possessions like cycle, footwear and door locks were being broken, damaged and tampered with on a day-to-day basis. We were totally traumatized yet the SP North of Pondicherry one Firoz Zia Hussain, failed to act in spite of repeated oral complaints and visits to the police station requesting for relief.

It is an open secret that the trustees pay hafta to the Pondicherry Police and many of them regularly visit the Trust Office for personal gains.

On 16.09.2004 Arunashri’s room had been tied with wire and rope. She went with Jayashree to the police station and did not budge till they had taken down her complaint and registered an FIR. They were made to wait in the police station till 9.00 p.m. by SHO Varadarajan. Her complaint on which FIR No.213/2004 was registered on 17.09.2004 had been dictated by the police to suit their convenience and unfortunately it did not contain all the grievances of Arunashri.

On 19.09.2004 police came to arrest Girish Panda. He took time to appear before the police and in the afternoon he went with Nirmal Swain to the police station.