The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a 32-year-old woman seeking to reopen a rape and criminal intimidation case against JSW Group chairman and managing director Sajjan Jindal. The woman had challenged an April 2024 order of a Bandra Metropolitan Magistrate, which had accepted the Mumbai Police’s B‑summary (closure) report and closed the case registered at the Bandra Kurla Complex (BKC) police station.
A division bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A Ankhad, in its 24th December 2025 judgment, refused to interfere with the magistrate’s decision or the police’s findings. The court said a magistrate dealing with a police report cannot force the police to change their opinion and should not doubt factual conclusions in the report when the complainant herself has stated she does not want to contest the case.
FIR, charges and Police Closure Report
In the FIR, Jindal was booked under Sections 376 (rape), 354 (outraging modesty) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, allegations he consistently denied as false and baseless. The police closure report said there was no supporting evidence, the complaint was filed after considerable delay, and the woman did not appear to record her statement under Section 164 CrPC despite several chances. Investigators also relied on hotel records and travel details to state that Jindal was not at Taj Lands End, Bandra, or other locations mentioned in the FIR on the dates alleged by the complainant.
The woman had earlier given an affidavit before the magistrate saying she did not wish to pursue the case and had no objection to the B‑summary report, after which the magistrate closed the matter.
Later, she approached the Bombay High Court asking for the investigation to be reopened, handed over to the CBI or a court‑monitored SIT, and for a chargesheet to be filed within three months, alleging that Jindal was a powerful person with political backing and that the police had not protected her interests.
Court’s view on the complainant and evidence
The bench described the complainant as a highly educated medical professional who had made a conscious, informed choice in her relationship with Jindal and noted that she had not alleged cheating or false promises.
Referring to WhatsApp chats placed on record, the court observed that she appeared enthusiastic towards Jindal and concluded that the police were entitled to form an independent opinion based on their investigation, finding no legal basis to order a reinvestigation. The petition was therefore dismissed.
