Smt Nikhat Afza vs The State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 27.03.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 05.05.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 08.05.2026
+ CRL.REV.P. 631/2023 & CRL.M.A. 15164/2023
SMT NIKHAT AFZA .....Petitioner
Through: Mohd. Hadis Ansari, Advocate
versus
THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for the
State
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
1. The present revision petition has been filed impugning the
order on charge dated 09.02.2023 [hereafter „ impugned order ‟], vide
which charges were framed against the petitioner for offence under
Sections 344/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter „ IPC ‟] in
SC No. 129/2022, arising out of FIR bearing no. 464/2021, registered
on 30.07.2021 at Police Station Govindpuri, Delhi, for commission of
offences under Sections 376/328/342/506 of the IPC.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution, is that the
complainant/prosecutrix had sent a complaint dated 19.07.2021 to the
CRL.REV.P. 631/2023 Page 1 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40
DCP, South-East, Delhi, pursuant to which the present FIR came to
be registered. It has been alleged that the prosecutrix, aged about 30
years and a resident of Tughlakabad, New Delhi, had, on 05.12.2008,
been travelling from Delhi to Gorakhpur by train to attend a wedding
ceremony. During the journey, she came into contact with accused
no. 1, Mohd. Ayaz, who had introduced himself as “Rajeev”, along
with his friend. It is alleged that at about 02:30 AM, when the
prosecutrix had gone to the toilet of the train, accused no. 1 along
with his friend had entered the said toilet, where accused no. 1 had
forcibly raped her, while his associate had clicked photographs and
recorded videos of the incident. Owing to fear of social stigma and
harm to her reputation, the prosecutrix did not disclose the said
incident to anyone at that time. It is further alleged that on
07.12.2008, while the prosecutrix had been returning from Gorakhpur
to Delhi by train, accused no. 1 had again met her and had threatened
her to share her mobile number, failing which he would make the
aforesaid photographs and videos viral. Under such coercion, the
prosecutrix had shared her mobile number with him. The prosecutrix
has further alleged that in January 2009, accused no. 1 had called her
and asked her to meet him at KFC, Connaught Place, New Delhi,
where he had allegedly administered an intoxicant to her in a cold
drink. Thereafter, he had taken her to a room and had committed rape
upon her against her will and without her consent. It has further been
alleged that when the prosecutrix had confronted him, he had
CRL.REV.P. 631/2023 Page 2 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40
pressured her to convert to Islam. It is also the case of the prosecutrix
that on an unspecified date in March 2021, all three accused persons,
including petitioner herein i.e. accused no. 2 (stated to be the wife of
accused no. 1), along with a maulvi and others, had wrongfully
confined her for about 20 days at a flat in Jasola, New Delhi, where
accused no. 1 had threatened her at gunpoint and had coerced her to
convert to Islam, also extending threats to the life of her son. Further,
it has been alleged that in the year 2010, accused no. 1 had extorted a
sum of ₹1,50,000/- from the prosecutrix by threatening to circulate
her photographs and videos. It has also been alleged that on multiple
occasions, including during the years 2018 to 2021, accused no. 1
had forced her to undergo abortion against her wishes. It is further
alleged that accused no. 1 had repeatedly committed rape upon the
prosecutrix, including during her pregnancy, at various locations,
including at the house of his friend in Saket, New Delhi, and had
continuously threatened her with dire consequences, including threats
to her life and that of her family members, as well as the circulation
of her photographs and videos, in case she made any complaint.
3. Thereafter, the statement of the prosecutrix had also been
recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. on 03.08.2021 before the
learned Magistrate, wherein she had reiterated the allegations as set
out in the FIR.
4. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed
against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 342/506
CRL.REV.P. 631/2023 Page 3 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40
of the IPC. By way of the impugned order, the learned ASJ (SC-RC),
South East District, Saket Courts, Delhi [hereafter „ Sessions Court ‟]
framed charges against the petitioner (accused no. 2) and accused no.
3, Mohd. Asif, for offences punishable under Sections 344/506/34 of
the IPC, whereas charges for offences under Sections
328/376/506/313/344/384 of the IPC were framed against accused
no. 1, Mohd. Ayaz. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads
as under:
“9.1 In the present case, it is clear that from the complaint
dated 19.07.2021 of the prosecutrix made to DCP South East,
Delhi as well as her statement dated 03.08.2021 recorded u/s
164 Cr.P.C that the prosecutrix has made specific allegations
against the accused persons allegations of the prosecutrix have
been narrated in para no. 3 of this order). The prosecutrix has
specifically named the accused persons including the accused
no. 2 and 3 in her statements/ complaints. The contradictions, if
any, in the statements of the prosecutrix can be put to her
during her testimony in the Court. The veracity of the
allegations leveled by the prosecutrix can only be determined
by conducting trial. If for the sake of arguments, it is presumed
that statements of some witnesses like Sh. Parmod, property
dealer, Dr. Rakhi Gupta and ASI Layak etc. are not supporting
the allegations of the prosecutrix, even then, the allegations of
the prosecutrix can not be discarded at this stage. It can be
ascertained only after conducting the trial as to the evidence of
which witness is trustworthy and reliable. It is noted that
statement of the prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C has been recorded
by the Ld. MM on oath in the In camera proceedings and in the
said statement the prosecutrix has leveled specific allegations
against the accused persons and that statement recorded on oath
u/s 164 Cr.P.C can not be discarded at this stage merely
because there are some contradictions in the statements of
prosecutrix or some other prosecution witnesses are not
supporting the allegations of the prosecutrix.
10. It is settled law that at the stage of framing of charge, the
court is not required to meticulously weigh the evidence and
CRL.REV.P. 631/2023 Page 4 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40
only a prima-facie view is to be taken.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, considering the
statements/allegations of the prosecutrix, material available on
record i.e. charge-sheet and documents annexed with the
charge sheet, prima-facie charge U/s 344/506/34 IPC is made
out against the accused no. 2 and 3 namely Nikhat Afza and
Mohd. Asif and charge u/s 328/376/506/313/344/384 IPC is
made out against the accused no. 1 Mohd. Ayaz.”
5. The charge framed against the petitioner and co-accused
Mohd. Asif reads as under:
“Firstly, one unknown day in the month of March 2021, both of
you the aforementioned accused alongwith co-accused Md.
Ayaz and some other person in furtherance of your common
intention, forcibly kept prosecutrix ( Name, parentage and
address of the prosecutrix have been withheld in order to
protect her identity ) in confinement for about 20 days in Flat
no. B-488, DDA Flat, 3 Floor, Pocket-11, Jasola, New Delhi,
within jurisdiction of PS Govindpuri, where your co-accused
Md. Ayaz threatened the prosecutrix on the point of revolver
for the life of the son of prosecutrix for converting her into
Islam religion and thereby you committed offences punishable
u/s 344/506/34 IPC and within the cognizance of this Court.”
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that
the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate material
contradictions in the statements of the prosecutrix. It is submitted that
the prosecutrix had initially filed a complaint against accused no. 1
on 17.05.2021 at Police Station Shaheen Bagh, followed by another
complaint dated 30.05.2021 at Police Station Govindpuri. In both
these complaints, she had alleged that she was wrongfully confined
for about 22 days in May 2021 at a flat in Jasola, Delhi, by accused
no. 1 and certain other persons; however, no allegations were levelled
CRL.REV.P. 631/2023 Page 5 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40
against the present petitioner in those complaints. It is further argued
that an inquiry in this regard was conducted by ASI Layak Ali of
Police Station Sarita Vihar, within whose jurisdiction Jasola falls,
who had submitted an inquiry report dated 06.07.2021. In the said
report, it was opined that, on the basis of CDR analysis of the mobile
numbers of the prosecutrix and the accused, as well as the statement
of a property dealer, no such incident had taken place within the
jurisdiction of Police Station Sarita Vihar. It is contended that the
learned Trial Court has failed to consider the said inquiry report.
7. The learned counsel further submits that the statements of Sh.
Parmod (property dealer), Dr. Rakhi Gupta, and ASI Layak Ali, all
recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., as well as the reply furnished
by Dr. R. Kanta pursuant to notice under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., along
with the CDR location chart, do not support the case of the
prosecution against the petitioner. It is further contended that the
chargesheet against the petitioner has been filed solely on the basis of
the allegations made by the prosecutrix in her complaint dated
17.05.2021 and her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.,
without any independent corroboration. The learned counsel also
submits that a compromise had been effected between the prosecutrix
and the husband of the petitioner vide compromise application dated
01.06.2021, for withdrawal of the complaint dated 30.05.2021 lodged
at P.S. Govindpuri. Thereafter, the prosecutrix had filed another
complaint dated 08.06.2021 seeking reopening of the earlier
CRL.REV.P. 631/2023 Page 6 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40
complaint, and subsequently lodged the present complaint dated
19.07.2021, leading to registration of the present FIR.
8. It is further argued that the petitioner is a medical practitioner
(Gynecologist) and has a five-year-old son, and that accused no. 1,
her husband, had allegedly been in a consensual relationship with the
prosecutrix from November 2008 till April 2021. It is submitted that
the petitioner had married accused no. 1 in the year 2012, had
completed her MBBS from a foreign country in 2016, and had come
to know about the alleged relationship between her husband and the
prosecutrix only in April 2021. On the basis of the aforesaid
circumstances, it is argued that the petitioner has been falsely
implicated in the present case at the instance of the prosecutrix, in
order to exert pressure upon her husband for monetary settlement, as
is evident from the compromise application dated 01.06.2021 and the
undertaking given by the husband of the petitioner regarding payment
of housing loan EMIs for the prosecutrix. Lastly, it is contended that
the offence under Section 344 of IPC presupposes the commission of
wrongful confinement as defined under Section 340 of IPC, which,
according to the petitioner, is not made out in the present case. It is,
therefore, prayed that the impugned order be set aside.
9. On the other hand, the learned APP appearing for the State
opposes the present petition and submits that the impugned order has
been rightly passed by the learned Sessions Court. It is contended
that the prosecutrix, in her complaint dated 19.07.2021 as well as in
CRL.REV.P. 631/2023 Page 7 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40
her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., has made
specific and categorical allegations against the accused persons,
including the present petitioner, which clearly disclose the
commission of the alleged offences. It is further submitted that at the
stage of framing of charge, the Court is only required to form a prima
facie view on the basis of the material on record, and is not expected
to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence. Any alleged
contradictions in the statements of the prosecutrix or other witnesses
cannot be examined at this stage and are matters to be tested during
trial. It is, therefore, prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
10. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of the
petitioner as well as the State, and has perused the material available
on record.
11. The allegations against the present petitioner, as emerging
from the record, may first be noted. In the FIR, the prosecutrix has
alleged that in March 2021, accused no. 1 had taken her to a flat at
Jasola, where the present petitioner (wife of accused no. 1), co-
accused Mohd. Asif, and a Maulvi were present. It has been alleged
that all of them had pressurized her to wear a burkha and convert to
Islam, and upon her refusal, accused no. 1 had threatened her with a
revolver, including threats to the life of her son. It is further alleged
that she was made to mislead her husband by stating that she was
hospitalized due to COVID-19, and was wrongfully confined in the
said flat for about 20 days, during which she was continuously
CRL.REV.P. 631/2023 Page 8 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40
pressurized to convert to Islam.
12. Similarly, in her statement recorded under Section 164 of
Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has, in substance, reiterated the said
allegations, though referring to the period as April 2021. She has
stated that accused no. 1 had taken her from outside her office to the
said flat at Jasola, where his wife (the present petitioner), Mohd. Asif,
and a Maulvi were present. It has been alleged that she was beaten
and coerced to accept Islam and marry accused no. 1, that a false
COVID report was sent to her husband to justify her absence, and
that she was kept confined there for about 20–22 days and subjected
to physical assault and pressure to convert.
13. This Court has considered the contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that she ought to be discharged on the basis
of the statements of certain witnesses, including Dr. Rakhi Gupta, Sh.
Pramod Kumar (property dealer), and ASI Layak Ali, recorded under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C., which allegedly contradicts the version of the
prosecutrix qua the present petitioner. However , this Court is of the
opinion that the truthfulness or otherwise of the statements of these
witnesses cannot be conclusively determined at this stage. The
evidentiary value of such statements can only be tested after the
witnesses are subjected to cross-examination during trial, and their
testimonies are appreciated in the overall factual matrix of the case,
and not in isolation.
14. As regards the contention that the learned Sessions Court has
CRL.REV.P. 631/2023 Page 9 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40
ignored the inquiry report dated 06.07.2021 submitted by ASI Layak
Ali, it is noted that the said inquiry pertained to allegations of
wrongful confinement in May 2021, in respect of which CDR
analysis was conducted. However, in the present FIR and the
statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., the allegations of
confinement relate to the period of March–April 2021. Thus, the said
inquiry report, which is confined to a different time period, cannot,
by itself, be a ground to discredit the prosecution case or to discharge
the petitioner at the stage of framing of charge.
15. It is well-settled that at the stage of framing of charge, the
Court is only required to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made
out, and not to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence. In this
regard, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Hazrat Deen v. State of Uttar
Pradesh: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1781 has held that an accused,
particularly in cases involving allegations of sexual assault, cannot be
discharged merely on the ground of discrepancies in the FIR and the
statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., as such inconsistencies are
matters for trial.
16. In the present case, the prosecutrix has specifically named the
petitioner and attributed a role to her in the alleged wrongful
confinement, and criminal intimidation. The said allegations, as
contained in the FIR and reiterated in the statement under Section
164 of Cr.P.C., are sufficient, at this stage, to give rise to a prima
facie case for the offences for which charge has been framed.
CRL.REV.P. 631/2023 Page 10 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40
17. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the
impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Court does not suffer
from any illegality, perversity, or infirmity warranting interference in
exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
18. The present petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending
application also stands disposed of.
19. At the same time, it is clarified that the observations made
herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition at the
stage of charge. The petitioner shall have full opportunity during trial
to cross-examine the prosecutrix and other prosecution witnesses, and
to lead evidence in her defence, and all such evidence shall be
considered and appreciated by the learned Trial Court in accordance
with law, uninfluenced by any observations made in the present
order.
20. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
MAY 05, 2026/zp/A
T.D.
CRL.REV.P. 631/2023 Page 11 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40