Delhi High Court: A petition was filed by ‘X’ challenging the order dated 20-08-2019 (‘impugned order’) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-Special FTC (‘ASJ’), Patiala House Courts, pursuant to which Respondent 2 to 5 were discharged in FIR dated 31-01-2019, registered at Police Station RK Puram, for the offences under Sections 376 and 506 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). Amit Mahajan, J., held that the Trial Court has evidently applied its judicial mind and considered the totality of the facts before discharging Respondent 2 — 5 of the alleged offences considering the absence of grave suspicion against them.
The petitioner filed a complaint on 11-05-2018 with the Delhi Commission for Women, alleging that the accused had physically exploited her for 13-14 years under the false pretext of marriage. She stated that the accused took her to the house of Respondent 5 in Tughlakabad, where he misrepresented that Respondent 5 was his brother and would help convince his family regarding their marriage. However, upon reaching the house, the petitioner discovered that Respondent 5 was not his brother. She alleged that Respondent 5 locked them inside before leaving, after which the accused forcibly established sexual relations with her, inflicting internal and external injuries. Despite continued assurances of marriage, he later refused, citing opposition from his family particularly Respondent 2 and 4, his brother and mother who allegedly threatened both the petitioner and her father with dire consequences if they pursued legal action. Respondent 3, a friend of the accused, was also accused of issuing similar threats. The petitioner’s MLC was conducted on 30-01-2019, revealing no external injuries, but she maintained that the accused had sexually assaulted her at Respondent 5’s house in 2015.
On 31-01-2019, FIR was registered under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC, wherein the petitioner additionally alleged that the accused had first assaulted her in 2007 under the guise of helping her find a job. Her statement under Section 164 CrPC was recorded detailing sexual assaults since 2007 and further claiming that Respondent 4, accused’s mother, had threatened her to protect her son. She also alleged that Respondent 5 had knowingly facilitated her assault in 2015, as evidenced by his remark, “is the work done?” following the incident. After filing her complaint in 2018, Respondent 2 and 3 allegedly threatened her and her father, leading her to a suicide attempt. On 15-02-2019, she wrote to the Delhi Commission for Women, alleging bias in the police investigation. Her supplementary statement on 03-09-2019 reiterated threats from Respondent 2 and 3, which led to her father’s hospitalization. The chargesheet filed included charges under Sections 376, 506, 120-B, and 195-A IPC against the accused and Respondent 2 to 5. However, by order dated 20-08-2019, the ASJ discharged Respondent 2 to 5 for lack of prima facie evidence. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging their discharge.
The Court noted that at the stage of framing of charge is to evaluate the material only for the purpose of finding out if the facts constitute the alleged offence, given the ingredients of the offence. Thus, while framing charges, the Court ought to look at the limited aspect of whether, given the material placed before it, there is grave suspicion against the accused which is not properly explained. Though, for the purpose of conviction, the same must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court further noted that the transcript of the recording prima facie show that the IO provided procedural guidance to the petitioner rather than misleading or coercing her. This undermines the claim of misconduct. The FIR was ultimately registered after the petitioner’s interaction with the DCW and subsequent complaints. The petitioner’s story is plagued with infirmities that it does not raise grave suspicion against Respondent 2 — 5 and the material on record does not point towards commission of the alleged offence.
Thus, the Court held that no ground is made out to warrant any interference in the impugned order.
[X v. State, CRL.REV. P. 1203/2019, decided on 27-01-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Ms. Sunita Arora, Advocate (DHCLSC) along with Petitioner-in-Person.
For the Respondent: Mr. Naresh Chahar, APP for the State. Mr. Chirag Jamwal, Advocate (Through V.C.) with Mr. Ajit Amar & Mr. Akashdeep Kakkar, Advocates for Respondent No.2 to 5. SI Mukesh Kumari (P.S. R.K. Puram).
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
