Priyanka Singh and Meetu Singh, sisters of late actor Sushant Singh Rajput say that Rhea Chakraborty has put forth a “moonshine defence and self-serving averments’’ in her reply to their petition to quash the first information report (FIR) filed against them over alleged ‘fake prescription’ of their brother via telemedicine.
The sisters, in their rejoinder to a reply filed by Rhea have now sought orders for a probe into her “malicious activities’’ and “grant damages under public law remedy for malicious prosecution.’’
Priyanka, 38 and Meetu, 45 have petitioned the HC to have the FIR lodged at Bandra police station on information given by Rhea, allege that the case against them was based on a “concocted story’’ and “unfounded allegations, unsubstantiated facts speculations and a misleading complaint.’’ The “counterblast” FIR makes out no case against them and deserves to be quashed said their rejoinder filed through their advocate Madhav Thorat, to Rhea’s reply to their petition.
The sisters said Rhea “deliberately concealed’’ a letter she had herself written on September 14 to the police in which she “conceaded that an FIR cannot be registered under section 306 (abetment of suicide) IPC.’’
The Bandra police on September 7 registered the FIR that accused the sisters and a doctor Tarun Kumar of “alleged offences of conspiracy, cheating and forgery…for fabricating medical prescription” for the late actor’s “anxiety’’ on June 8, without his actual examination. The Mumbai police has said, “The FIR also seeks investigation into possibility of deterioration of his mental health and eventual suicide pursuant to the conspiracy.” It is now for the CBI to investigate both the FIRs, said the police.
They said there is no allegation in her reply too that any such alleged drug was actually administered to late actor.
The drugs prescribed are not banned but an April 2020 notification and tele psychiatry clearly permits the prescription through tele medicine.
The sisters in their rejoinder that the FIR was filed “maliciously’’ to “wreak vengeance’’ and harass them due to a “personal grudge’’ by making “preposterous allegations.’’ The rejoinder said a bare perusal of the FIR against them “does not make out any cognizable offence.’’