Kangana Renaut's Lawyer Questions Cops in Hrithik Roshan Imposter Case

By Priyanka Basu, Everymedia

English: Hrithik with his wife Suzanne, (on ex...

English: Hrithik with his wife Suzanne, (on extreme right) and sister-in-law in the middle (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Mumbai, April 15 - Advocate Rizwan Siddiquee states that “I have in my letter to the DCP, questioned the Police on various aspects. In all fairness the first thing that I have asked them is that when Hrithik Roshan in his complaint  made to the Police in December 2014, claims to have gained knowledge of an imposter from many people including his fans and people from the film industry then why has no one been questioned till now in the said matter. This could mean only one thing i.e. either Hrithik Roshan publicly lied about various people giving him information about an imposter or the Police did not do their job diligently as was required under Section 154 of CRPC, and close the matter by filing an appropriate report in time. The Police were of course not waiting for good 15 mooknths after having received first hand information of a cognizable offence from Hrithik in December 2014, to suddenly delete the names of all other witnesses as reported in media and name Kangana in the month of March 2016, and then thereafter they suddenly go on a wild goose chase as if they are searching for some stolen national treasure”.

Related: Cops Not Interested in Kangana Ranaut's Laptop

Hrithik has otherwise claimed in his Notice that he had gained knowledge of an imposter in the month of May 2014 therefore in the last about two years there was no hurry to find any imposter, so suddenly why is there so much chaos and urgency. It is obvious that these are nothing but efforts to deviate media attention from the main subject matter.

Even otherwise if the Police really want to do their duty and want co-operation from witnesses then even they are required to perform their duties as a public officer and provide a certified copy of FIR, if demanded by a witness under Section 76 of Indian Evidence Act 1872. After all the Witness is also a concerned party and the FIR and other related documents are public documents.

I have in my letter to the DCP also made a complaint against an anonymous Police source who is giving false and misleading statements to the Press. Recently there have been media reports that my client has been called upon to hand over her laptop. I am shocked by these reports as my client has never given any statement that she ever used her laptop to communicate with any alleged imposter therefore where are these reports coming from.

Besides the Police department has a designated police spokesperson, who is duly authorized to give statements on behalf of the Police department. However it was further observed by me that the same anonymous police officer is also giving loose statements in the media like my client has been served a summons on the 7th of April by email and that accordingly my client was required to be present before the Police department on the 9th of April 2016.  Whereas the true and correct fact of the matter is that my client was last served a letter in the said matter on the 1st of April 2016 and the same was duly responded to by me and no further letters have been received by my client on the said matter.

I have therefore interalia urged the DCP to look into the matter and punish this so called police source who has been giving loose and misleading statements to the media for reasons best known to him/her.

On a lighter note I feel that finding this Police Source immediately is more important than finding this alleged imposter as this source will definitely dent the image of the Police force.”