Patan High Court Dismisses Writ Against CPN-UML Secretary Mahesh Basnet

Kathmandu. The Patan High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a woman demanding that a supplementary complaint against CPN-UML Secretary Mahesh Basnet be advanced. The court dismissed the petition on the grounds that the legal proceedings against Basnet are already underway.

The woman had filed a complaint at the District Police Office demanding an investigation into allegations of feticide, rape, and robbery against Basnet. After the complaint did not proceed, she filed a supplementary writ. A bench of High Court judges Somkant Mainali and Keshav Prasad Adhikari dismissed the petition, noting that the legal process is already in motion. Following the announcement of the order, Mahesh Basnet claimed on social media that the harassment he has faced from the woman for three years has ended. However, the High Court's order effectively keeps the path open for investigation and legal action.

On Tuesday, the District Court had refused to grant an arrest warrant, stating that it would proceed according to the law once the original case file was received from the Patan High Court. The High Court, taking note of these proceedings, dismissed the writ, stating that a mandamus order was unnecessary as the legal process is already active.

In its order dismissing the writ, the High Court stated, "Since an order was issued by the Kathmandu District Court on 2082/12/16 regarding the request for an arrest warrant based on the supplementary complaint, and it appears that the legal process is moving forward, there is no need to issue a mandamus order as requested by the petitioner."

SP Pawan Bhattarai of the Kathmandu District Police Office stated that a decision on how to proceed will be made after reviewing the full text of the Patan High Court's verdict. "We have not yet received the original file from the Patan High Court," he said. "A decision regarding the investigation process will be taken once we receive a copy of the verdict."

The victim had filed a complaint alleging rape and robbery. Initially, the District Attorney's Office decided to shelve the complaint in 2079, citing insufficient evidence. The High Court had previously dismissed the victim's first writ against that decision in Bhadra 2080.

Subsequently, the victim submitted a supplementary complaint with additional evidence on 2081 Kartik 6. However, on 2081 Magh 20, the District Attorney's Office decided not to proceed with the case, stating that the additional evidence, including hospital documents, did not substantiate the allegations. The victim had filed this latest writ in the High Court demanding that the Attorney's Office decision be overturned and the investigation be initiated.