Advocate Parmanand Gupta, accused in the case of sending and harassing them in the case of fake cases against 29 people in Lakhranau and other sections of SC/ST Act, rape, has been convicted by the court.
Advocate Parmanand Gupta has been sentenced to life imprisonment by Vivekananda Sharan Tripathi, Special Judge of Scheduled Castes/Tribes Prevention Act. Along with this, a fine of Rs 5.10 lakh has also been imposed.
Parmanand Gupta used to resort to a woman working in his wife’s beauty parlor to file a false case. The woman used to do the same as she used to say under the influence of ecstasy. The advocate was decorated on the basis of evidence and strong lobbying by ACP Vibhutkhand, Radha Raman Singh and Special Public Prosecutor Arvind Mishra, in the investigation of the rape of rape lodged against two brothers.
Special Public Prosecutor Arvind Mishra said that Parmanand Gupta was having a dispute with Arvind Yadav and his brother Awadhesh Yadav, who lives in Vibhutikhand. Parmanand had filed a case of SC/ST Act and rape against both of them by showing the victim to Pooja Rawat, who works in his wife’s beauty parlor. On 18 January 2025, a case was registered and ordered to be investigated. The investigation of the case was handed over to the then ACP Rana Raman Singh. The allegations were found to be baseless in the ACP investigation. It was learned that there was a property dispute between the advocate’s wife and the two accused. Due to this a fake case was filed. There was no evidence in rape, assault and threats and electronic evidence, phone details of the phone to prove the allegations against both the accused brothers. Evidences were presented in the court. Meanwhile, it was found that 18 cases were lodged in various police stations by Parmanand and 11 cases through the woman. They were all false.
When the court summoned, the plaintiff opened the poll
The most interesting aspect of this episode is that when the court summoned Advocates Parmanand Gupta and Pooja Rawat for consideration, Pooja gave an application on 4 August 2025 that she had come to Lucknow from Gorakhpur in connection with employment. He has been trapped by advocate Parmanand Gupta and his wife Sangeeta Gupta. Pooja Rawat also told the court that Sangeeta Gupta has a beauty parlor’s job, in which she used to work as a assistant and Sangeeta Gupta’s family of Arvind Yadav etc. is having a property dispute in the form of measles number 351 and cases are also going on in the civil court. It was also said in the application that Parmanand Gupta, taking advantage of the fact of his scheduled caste, has lodged many cases of rape, molestation etc. against the family of Arvind Yadav etc. in the courts. Pooja Rawat also told the court that at the time of the alleged incident with her, there was no incident of molestation or misconduct, but to give a statement like Parmanand Gupta to the magistrate, she had to give the same statement. She should be forgiven and she is telling the court correctly.
Criminals like Parmanand are not practicable: Court
The court has clearly stated in its decision that criminals like Advocate Parmanand Gupta are not admitted and practiced in the court. The purity of the judiciary should remain, with this intention, a copy of the information and decision should be sent to the Council of Uttar Pradesh with a letter. Along with this, the court gave conditional apology to Pooja Rawat’s application and the statements made by her.
Police reached the spot and did not find room
ACP Radha Raman Singh said that the rape case was against two brothers, there was apprehension about which he was apprehensive. After Pooja’s statements, he reached the spot, where he spoke of rape. The room was not found on the spot during terrestrial inspection. There was an empty plot. Pooja and the accused brothers’ call details were investigated, and both of them had never talked on the phone. The location of the time of the incident was not found. Among the witnesses of the trial was the name of the wife of Advocate Parmanand. When he took a video statement of witnesses around the scene, it was found that Pooja was never in that locality or nearby area.