<p>After the conviction of Rathore by a CBI court in Chandigarh last month, the Haryana Police had registered three fresh FIRs against Rathore two of which were later transferred to the seven member Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by IGP (Security) S S Kapoor.<br /><br />The two FIRs transferred to the SIT were registered on the complaints of Ruchika's father Subhash Chander Girhotra and brother Ashu levelling a series of criminal charges, including attempt to murder, wrongful confinement, causing disappearance of evidence and doctoring the post mortem report against the former Haryana top cop.<br /><br />The third FIR against Rathore charging him under section 306 IPC (abetment to suicide) was registered on January 5. The earlier two FIRs were registered on December 29 last.<br />The other accused in the three FIRs were the then Ambala Superintendent of Police (SP) K P Singh, Sub Inspector Prem Dutt and Assistant Sub Inspectors Jai Narayan and Sewa Singh.<br /><br />The three cases would be investigated by the agency's Special Crime Branch (SCB) from New Delhi and the local office would only be providing assistance, a senior CBI officer in the Chandigarh office of the agency said. <br /><br />SIT sources said that they were handing over to the CBI all the documents, including the statements of some of those associated with the three cases in one way or the other besides the records available with them.<br /><br />Sixty eight year old Rathore was awarded six months' rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs 1,000 by the Chandigarh CBI court last month for having molested a budding 14-year-old tennis player Ruchika here on August 12, 1990. The girl committed suicide three years later in December 1993.<br /><br />Punjab and Haryana High Court today issued notices to the CBI for January 18 on two petitions of Rathore seeking anticipatory bail in the first two FIRs and the third petition seeking quashing of the third FIR charging him under section 306 IPC (abetment to suicide) saying the issue had been settled at the level of the Supreme Court.</p>
<p>After the conviction of Rathore by a CBI court in Chandigarh last month, the Haryana Police had registered three fresh FIRs against Rathore two of which were later transferred to the seven member Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by IGP (Security) S S Kapoor.<br /><br />The two FIRs transferred to the SIT were registered on the complaints of Ruchika's father Subhash Chander Girhotra and brother Ashu levelling a series of criminal charges, including attempt to murder, wrongful confinement, causing disappearance of evidence and doctoring the post mortem report against the former Haryana top cop.<br /><br />The third FIR against Rathore charging him under section 306 IPC (abetment to suicide) was registered on January 5. The earlier two FIRs were registered on December 29 last.<br />The other accused in the three FIRs were the then Ambala Superintendent of Police (SP) K P Singh, Sub Inspector Prem Dutt and Assistant Sub Inspectors Jai Narayan and Sewa Singh.<br /><br />The three cases would be investigated by the agency's Special Crime Branch (SCB) from New Delhi and the local office would only be providing assistance, a senior CBI officer in the Chandigarh office of the agency said. <br /><br />SIT sources said that they were handing over to the CBI all the documents, including the statements of some of those associated with the three cases in one way or the other besides the records available with them.<br /><br />Sixty eight year old Rathore was awarded six months' rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs 1,000 by the Chandigarh CBI court last month for having molested a budding 14-year-old tennis player Ruchika here on August 12, 1990. The girl committed suicide three years later in December 1993.<br /><br />Punjab and Haryana High Court today issued notices to the CBI for January 18 on two petitions of Rathore seeking anticipatory bail in the first two FIRs and the third petition seeking quashing of the third FIR charging him under section 306 IPC (abetment to suicide) saying the issue had been settled at the level of the Supreme Court.</p>
