Molestation case: CBI to meet Ruchika's father

The Central Bureau of Investigation that has begun its investigation into all fresh cases filed against former Director General of Police SPS Rathore relating to the molestation of Ruchika Girhotra, will meet with Ruchika's father Subhash Chander Girhotra along with her friend Aradhana's father Anand Prakash at their Chandigarh camp office on Friday.

Earlier on Wednesday evening, CBI officials visited the Girhotra residence. The CBI took over the case on Monday (January 12) and is now probing the three new FIRs filed against Ruchika's tormentor SPS Rathore, including abetment to suicide.

The former cop has been charged for allegedly molesting 14-year old teenager Ruchika Girhotra, a budding young tennis star in 1990s.

Rathore has three cases pending against him in the court; all filed by Ruchika's family and friends. Ruchika's family lawyer Pankaj Bharadwaj had earlier filed two First Information Reports against Rathore.

The lawyer had claimed that the first FIR was filed for forging documents like the inquest report and the other for illegal detention of Ruchika's brother, Ashu, who was kept in illegal detention at the behest of Rathore and given tortures.

The third case is that of abetment to suicide against him. The family has claimed that Ruchika was expelled from Sacred Heart Convent in Chandigarh due to Rathore's influence.

Teenager Ruchika had killed herself three years after the incident by drinking poison. The CBI is investigating whether Rathore drove Ruchika to suicide after she filed molestation charges.

An inquiry by the Chandigarh administration has found that Ruchika was unfairly expelled from her school in 1990. The report also concluded that the expulsion took place under pressure from 'an external influence.'

The Special CBI court had earlier held the former cop guilty under Section 354 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to six months imprisonment and had imposed a fine of Rs 1,000 on him.

Rathore, had also moved the High Court against the decision of the District and Sessions judge Panchkula, who had rejected his bail plea on January 8 in connection with the two cases registered against him in Panchkula on December 29 last year, under sections 166, 167, 182, 191, 195-A, 201, 307, 340, 471, 506, 120 B of the IPC.