Full Judgment Text
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 25.07.2023
Pronounced on: 07.08.2023
+ CRL.REV.P. 101/2018
KAUSHIK SEN GUPTA & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Shashi Shankar, Mr.
Priyank Tiwari, Mr. Shashank
Pandey and Mr. Siddharth
Chaudhary, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for the
State with SI Meenu, CAW
Cell, New Ashok Nagar.
Mr. Asit Kumar Roy,
Advocate for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.
1. By way of present revision petition filed under Section 397 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( 'Cr.P.C.' ), the petitioners seek
setting aside of order dated 05.12.2017 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge (SFTC)-02, East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi ( 'learned
ASJ' ) in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 619/2013, dated
29.11.2013, registered at Police Station New Ashok Nagar, Delhi under
CRL.REV.P.101/2018 Page 1 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.08.2023
17:57:31
Sections 366//376/498A/406/506/328/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
( 'IPC' ).
2. The present FIR had been registered against the accused persons
based on the complaint lodged by the complainant/respondent no.
2who alleged that she had known petitioner no. 1 since childhood and
she had even helped him in completing his Master's tourism project. It
is stated that when the complainant had been looking for an
internship opportunity during seventh semester of her college,
petitioner no. 1 had offered her an internship at his workplace. It is
stated that during this period, petitioner no. 1 had shared details about
the ongoing problems in his matrimonial life. After the internship had
got over, the petitioner no. 1 had continued to contact the complainant
and had even asked her to marry him, but she had refused to do so. It is
stated that on 12.02.2012, petitioner no. 1 had invited her for a lunch
party at his house, as he had completed his Masters' course, where his
family and friends were also supposed to join for the celebration. It is
alleged that when the complainant had reached his house, she had
discovered that there was no one except petitioner no. 1, who had
informed her that he had already ordered the food and the guests were
on their way. Thereafter, he had offered chips and cold drink to the
complainant, and after consuming the same, she had become
unconscious. It is alleged that when she had regained consciousness,
she had found herself and petitioner no. 1 naked and petitioner no. 1
had threatened to make her intimate photographs and videos public. It
is further alleged that the complainant had later got engaged to
someone else but petitioner no. 1 had ultimately got their marriage
CRL.REV.P.101/2018 Page 2 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.08.2023
17:57:31
cancelled. It is further alleged that in November, 2012, petitioner no. 1
had forced the complainant to go to Haridwar with him, by threatening
to post her inappropriate photographs and videos online, and had
established physical relations with her without her consent. It is also
alleged that on 20.07.2013, the complainant had gone to Janpath for
shopping with petitioner no. 1, and he had taken her to Arya Samaj
Mandir, where arrangements for their marriage had already been made
without her prior knowledge and even witnesses were present for the
purposes of marriage. It is alleged that despite her objections, under the
threat of making the photographs and videos public, the petitioner no. 1
had compelled her to marry him. After the marriage, it is alleged that
petitioner no. 1 had asked the complainant to shift to his house, after
which she had brought all her belongings including jewellery, books,
clothes, documents, etc. to his house and the petitioner no. 1 had taken
all her belongings. But thereafter, petitioner no. 1 had asked the
complainant to go back to her house as he had not informed about
the marriage to his parents yet. It is stated that the complainant had
then returned to her home but a few days later, petitioner no. 1 had
informed her that his mother wanted Rs. 6 lakhs for reception expenses,
after hearing which, the complainant had even jumped from the first
floor balcony of her parental house on 18.08.2023. It is further stated
that to take revenge, petitioner no. 1 had posted their matrimonial
photographs on her Facebook account and had even hacked her email
id. A few days thereafter, petitioner no. 1 had also visited her parental
house along with his father i.e. petitioner no. 2, who had also
demanded Rs. 6 lakhs and an Alto car from the parents of the
CRL.REV.P.101/2018 Page 3 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.08.2023
17:57:31
complainant, but her parents had refused to fulfil the said demand. A
complaint had then been filed before CAW cell, and under societal
pressure, the petitioner no. 1 had returned her belongings, except for
gold jewellery.
3. On these allegations, the present FIR was registered. After
completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the present case
and the learned ASJ vide order dated 05.12.2017 had framed charges
against the accused persons i.e. the petitioners herein under
Sections 366/376/328/506 of IPC against petitioner no. 1 and under
Sections 498A/406/34 of IPC against both the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the petitioners
have been falsely implicated in the present case, on the basis of
concocted and frivolous allegations levelled by the
complainant/respondent no. 2. It is stated that petitioner no. 1 and the
complainant had got married to each other on 20.07.2013 as both of
them were in love with each other and that the complainant had signed
an affidavit and had also put her thumb impression on the same. It is
thus stated that the marriage between the parties was without any kind
of pressure and without any demand of dowry whatsoever. It is also
stated that during solemnization of marriage, various photographs had
been taken in which the complainant can be seen to be very happy
which shows that the allegations of forceful marriage are false in
nature. It is argued that one month later, the father of complainant had
got to know about their marriage and he had written an email to the
complainant that they cannot accept petitioner no. 1 as their son-in-law
and later, the complainant had been confined and locked in her parental
CRL.REV.P.101/2018 Page 4 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.08.2023
17:57:31
home by her parents. It is further stated that thereafter, the father of
complainant had tried to intimidate the petitioners and had demanded
Rs. 5 lakhs as well as a house in the name of the complainant and had
threatened to get a case registered against them if they failed to
fulfill his demands. It is stated that the petitioners had tried to lodge a
complaint against the complainant and her father which was not
registered by the police, rather the present FIR was registered on the
complaint lodged by the complainant containing false and frivolous
allegations. It is stated that the MLC of the complainant does not
support the case of prosecution. It is further stated that the priest at the
temple where the marriage had been solemnised between petitioner no.
1 and the complainant had also told the investigating officer that the
marriage had taken place with consent of both the parties and there was
no sign of any pressure on any of them. It is also stated that despite
house search of petitioners, no stridhan was recovered to support the
allegations of the complainant, and the documents of the temple where
marriage had taken place were also found to be true and accurate. Thus,
it is prayed that impugned order be set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant/
respondent no. 2 argues that this is a case of rape under intoxication,
preparing intimate photos and videos of such heinous acts and then
blackmailing with threats of disclosing the same. It is stated that the
petitioner was aged about 40 years at the time of incident whereas the
complainant was only about 21-22 years old and they both shared a
relationship like brother and sister. It is stated that the petitioner was
already married to another woman. Learned counsel further states
CRL.REV.P.101/2018 Page 5 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.08.2023
17:57:31
that the complainant has levelled detailed and specific allegations
against the petitioner in her complaint which had culminated into the
present FIR and a prima facie case exists against the petitioner for the
commission of offences alleged. It is stated that the petitioner no. 1 had
committed rape upon the complainant after administering her
intoxicating substance and had taken obscene photos and videos in a
planned way which could be used for blackmailing. It is also stated that
petitioner no. 1 had taken her to Haridwar without her consent and had
established physical relations with her against her will. It is thus argued
that present petition be dismissed.
6. Learned APP for the State argues that there are no reasons to
interfere with the impugned order. It is stated that there was sufficient
material on record to frame charges against the petitioners, considering
the well-settled law on framing of charge.
7. The arguments addressed by both sides have been heard and the
material on record has been perused.
8. As regards the settled law on exercise of powers under Section
397 of Cr.P.C. in a case challenging an order on charge, it will be
relevant to take note of the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in case
of Manendra Prasad Tiwari v. Amit Kumar Tiwari 2022 SCC OnLine
SC 1057 , whereby it has been held as under:
"21. The law is well settled that although it is open to a High Court
entertaining a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC or a revision
application under Section 397 of the CrPC to quash the charges
framed by the trial court, yet the same cannot be done by weighing
the correctness or sufficiency of the evidence. In a case praying for
quashing of the charge, the principle to be adopted by the High
Court should be that if the entire evidence produced by the
prosecution is to be believed, would it constitute an offence or not.
CRL.REV.P.101/2018 Page 6 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.08.2023
17:57:31
The truthfulness, the sufficiency and acceptability of the
material produced at the time of framing of a charge can be
done only at the stage of trial. To put it more succinctly, at the
stage of charge the Court is to examine the materials only with a
view to be satisfied that prima facie case of commission of
offence alleged has been made out against the accused person . It
is also well settled that when the petition is filed by the accused
under Section 482 CrPC or a revision Petition under Section
397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC seeking for the quashing of
charge framed against him, the Court should not interfere with
the order unless there are strong reasons to hold that in the
interest of justice and to avoid abuse of the process of the Court
a charge framed against the accused needs to be quashed . Such
an order can be passed only in exceptional cases and on rare
occasions . It is to be kept in mind that once the trial court has
framed a charge against an accused the trial must proceed without
unnecessary interference by a superior court and the entire evidence
from the prosecution side should be placed on record. Any attempt
by an accused for quashing of a charge before the entire prosecution
evidence has come on record should not be entertained sans
exceptional cases.
22. The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction
under Section 397 of CrPC has been time and again explained by
this Court. Further, the scope of interference under Section
397 CrPC at a stage, when charge had been framed, is also well
settled. At the stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned
not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the
material and form an opinion whether there is strong suspicion that
the accused has committed an offence, which if put to trial, could
prove his guilt. The framing of charge is not a stage, at which stage
the final test of guilt is to be applied. Thus, to hold that at the stage
of framing the charge, the court should form an opinion that the
accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is to hold
something which is neither permissible nor is in consonance with
the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure
23. Section 397 CrPC vests the court with the power to call for and
examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of
satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings
or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a
patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity
which has crept in the proceeding."
(Emphasis supplied)
CRL.REV.P.101/2018 Page 7 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.08.2023
17:57:31
9. In the present case, this Court notes that the complainant has
leveled specific allegations against petitioner no. 1 that on 12.02.2012,
he had called her at his residence on the pretext that he had organised a
lunch party, however upon reaching there, the complainant had found
that there were no other guests, and petitioner no. 1 had thereafter
administered some intoxicating substance to her due to which she had
become unconscious and upon regaining consciousness, she
had discovered that petitioner no. 1 had established physical relations
with her and had taken inappropriate photographs and videos of the
same. There are also allegations to the effect that petitioner no. 1 had
forcefully taken the complainant to a hotel in Haridwar in November,
2012, under threat of making her inappropriate photographs and
videos public, and had thereafter established physical relations with her
against her consent. Further, the complainant had alleged that petitioner
no. 1 had solemnized marriage with her forcefully but thereafter, he
had started harassing her for the purpose of dowry and had demanded
Rs. 6 lakhs from her. She had further alleged that petitioner no. 1 along
with his father i.e. petitioner no. 2 had visited her house and petitioner
no. 2 had asked her father to pay Rs. 6 lakhs towards expenses of
reception ceremony and had also demanded a car. It is also the case of
complainant that she had brought several belongings with her when she
had come to the house of petitioners including her gold jewellery but
the same had not been returned by the petitioners and rather had
been misappropriated by them.
10. It is a settled law that at the stage of framing of charge, it is only
to be seen whether a prima facie case exists on the basis of the material
CRL.REV.P.101/2018 Page 8 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.08.2023
17:57:31
on record. In the present case, the complainant has levelled specific
allegations against the petitioner for the offences for which the
petitioners have been charged with. The complainant has corroborated
her version in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. As far
as the contentions raised on behalf of petitioners are concerned, the
same are all probable defences of the accused/petitioners which can be
raised and adjudicated as per law during the course of trial.
11. Thus, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds
no reasons to interfere with the impugned order framing charges
against the petitioners.
12. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.
13. It is however clarified that nothing expressed hereinabove
shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on merits of the case
14. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
AUGUST 7, 2023/ns
CRL.REV.P.101/2018 Page 9 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.08.2023
17:57:31