Delhi District Court
Rakhee Nandwana vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) on 31 January, 2017
IN THE COURT OF MANOJ JAIN: SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (CBI)
SOUTH DISTRICT: SAKET DISTRICT COURTS
NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 22/14 & 8164/2016
Rakhee Nandwana,
AB-884, Sarojini Nagar,
New Delhi.
....................Revisionist
Versus
1 State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)
2 Sri Sharada Institute of Indian Management & Research,
Plot No. 7, Phase-II, Inst. Area, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi-70.
3 Dr. Parthasarathy, CMD,
Sri Sharada Institute of Indian Management & Research.
4 Rajeev Tewari, Director,
Sri Sharada Institute of Indian Management & Research.
5 Devender Kapoor, Director,
Sri Sharada Institute of Indian Management & Research.
6 Parveen Mehta, Director,
Sri Sharada Institute of Indian Management & Research.
Respondents No.3- 6 at
Plot No. 7, Phase-II, Inst Area, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi
................Respondents
Date of institution of Revision : 21/02/2012
Date of Allocation : 22/02/2012
Date of conclusion of arguments : 31/01/2017
Date of Judgment : 31/01/2017
Cr.Rev. No. 22/14 & 8164/16 Rakhee Nandwana vs state & ors Page 1 of 8
Particulars related to impugned order:
CC No. : 06/1
U/s : 203 Cr.PC
PS : Vasant Kunj
Date of impugned order : 13/01/2012
Name of learned Trial Court : Sh Prashant Sharma
MM-06/Saket Court Complex
New Delhi
Memo of Appearance
Sh. K.Z. Khan, learned counsel for revisionist.
Sh. R.S. Negi, learned Addl. P.P. for State/respondent no. 1.
Sh. Akhil Arora, Ld Counsel for Respondent no.3
Ms Tanya, Ld Proxy counsel for Respondent no.6
JUDGMENT
1 The present is a judicial verdict on a revision petition filed by the revisionist, Rakhee Nandwana, against the order, dated 13.01.2012, passed by the Ld Trial Court.
2 The present proceedings are off shot of complaint filed by Rakhee Bohra. She initially prayed for investigation by police by making request u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. However, she was, instead, asked to lead pre- summoning evidence. She led such pre-summoning evidence before learned Trial Court but learned learned Trial Court dismissed the complaint u/s 203 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 13.01.2012.
3 Such order is under challenge.
4 Earlier appeal was filed against said order, dated 13.01.2012, but vide order dated 02.01.2014, such appeal has been converted into a revision petition.
Cr.Rev. No. 22/14 & 8164/16 Rakhee Nandwana vs state & ors Page 2 of 85 As far as cross-matter is concerned, Sri Sharda Institute of Indian Management & Research (hereinafter referred to as institute) had also lodged a complaint against Ms. Rakhee Bohra (revisionist herein) and pursuant to the direction passed by the Court, FIR was ordered to be registered, which is FIR No. 46/2009 u/s 403/406/408/409/34 IPC PS Vasant Kunj. It has been apprised that police had, after investigation, filed closure report before the learned Trial Court. Such closure report was considered by the learned Trial Court and, vide order dated 01.04.2013, learned Trial Court ordered further investigation. It has been argued that further investigation is still pending and police is yet to file status report/ final report before the concerned court.
6. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by revisionist, Rakhe Nadwana Bohra, against the respondent u/s 156(3) Cr.PC to the effect that she joined in Sri Sharada Institute of Indian Management as a receptionist. After joining the duties, the complainant worked with dedication and soon she was promoted to post of Executive (General Administration and Cash). It is further alleged in the complaint that The Chairman-cum- Managing Director (herein referred as CMD) of the institute, namely, Dr Parthsarthy started sending flattering messages on the official number of the revisionist. It is further alleged in the complaint that, on the pretext of official work at Shringeri, she was taken there on 23/07/2008, where she stayed for three days and there after their return journey to Delhi was routed via Mumbai, where she stayed with her maternal Uncle. It is further alleged that, in the night of 27.07.2008, she was called by the CMD at the dead of night at Hotel Hyatt on the pretext of some urgent meeting and when she went there , she found that there was no meeting and she Cr.Rev. No. 22/14 & 8164/16 Rakhee Nandwana vs state & ors Page 3 of 8 was called to share bed with him in the said hotel room. It is further alleged in the complaint that, after coming back to Delhi, she decided to quit the job but she was persuaded by the CMD and other Directors for resuming her duties and CMD also touched her feet and begged for forgiveness. Thereafter, after joining her duties, the CMD directed the complainant to apply for the post of Principal Officer cum Joint Secretary, vide notification dated 29/08/2008, she was appointed as Principal Officer cum Joint Secretary. Thereafter, complainant had alleged various allegations against the respondents of harassment, molestation and rape. She has further alleged that she lodged a complaint, dated 12.12.2008, with Delhi Commission for Women and, thereafter, on 29.01.2009, she had lodged complaint with the police but no action was taken, hence, she, left with no other remedy, filed this complaint. On receipt of complaint case, Ld Trial Court fixed the matter for CE and after leading CE, matter was fixed for arguments on the summoning of the accused persons. In the meanwhile, an application u/s 340 Cr.P.C was also moved by the respondents. Vide order dated 13/01/2012, Ld Trial Court dismissed the complaint u/s 203 Cr.PC.
7. Aggrieved from the said order, revisionist has preferred this revision petition. It is contended by Ld Counsel for revisionist that Ld MM failed to appreciate the order of the Hon'ble High Court and did not consider the investigation carried out on the complaint of the revisionist. It is further contended by Ld counsel for revisionist, that Ld Trial court did not appreciate the facts that at the time of passing the impugned order, there was no ATR on record nor the Ld MM directed the concerned police to file the ATR, before deciding the complaint of revisionist.. It is further contended by that the impugned order of Ld MM is full of conjecture and surmises and is bad in law. It is further contended by Ld counsel for revisionist that Ld Trial Court Cr.Rev. No. 22/14 & 8164/16 Rakhee Nandwana vs state & ors Page 4 of 8 failed to seek the evidence by directing the concerned police person to collect the evidence in respect of the averments made in the complaint, against the accused persons and the said evidence was material for the just decision of the complaint of the revisionist. It is further contended that Ld MM failed to appreciate the evidence led by the revisionist and discarded her evidence without application of mind, raising serious objections against the conduct of the revisionist for not taking appropriate action against the accused persons, at the very first chance, and taking the appropriate action against the accused persons after a delay of certain period without appreciating the fact that the revisionist is a married lady.
8 It is further contended by Ld counsel for revisionist that in such type of the allegations, made in the complaint by the revisionist, the police investigation is must and necessary for coming to a conclusion which have not been availed by Ld Trial Court and the court also did not pursue the written submissions made by the revisionist's counsel and decided the complaint of the revisionist on the basis of only the evidence of revisionist. It has further been contended that the judgment cited by Ld Trial Court i.e. Pepsi Food Pvt Ltd Vs Special Judicial Magistrate, is not applicable, in facts and circumstances of the present matter, as the allegations against the accused persons are very serious in nature and that in such type of allegations, the complainant, hesitates in complaining to the police or to the Court as the Indian Ladies are not accustomed to approach the police or to the Court . It has further been contended that Ld Trial Court did not believe the version of the revisionist and failed to appreciate the circumstances and the trauma under which the revisionist had undergone during the commission of offence by the accused persons and during the whole trial before the Trial Court and also during the tenure of her services in the Institute i.e. Sharda Cr.Rev. No. 22/14 & 8164/16 Rakhee Nandwana vs state & ors Page 5 of 8 Institute of Indian Management. It has further been contended that Ld Trial Court had failed to appreciate the proceedings before Delhi Commission for Women, who had summoned the accused persons on various dates and that the accused persons have failed to appear before Delhi Commission for Women, Inspite of repeated summoning, whereas, Ld Trial Court wrongly held that the revisionist did not take initiative to make complaints to the police authorities. It has further been argued that incident, dated 23/07/2008 and 27/07/2008, pertains to Mumbai and the evidence in respect of the same could have been obtained only through the services of the police which have not been obtained, by Ld Trial Court, inspite of the requests of the revisionist. It has further been contended that Ld Trial Court did not take into consideration that revisionist, being married lady and having children, did not want to spoil her married life and due to the said reasons, the revisionist delayed the reporting the matter to her husband. It has further been contended that incidents, pertaining to places outside Delhi, require police investigation, which has not been obtained by the trial Court, inspite of the requests of the revisionist. It has further been contended that Ld MM failed to appreciate that the revisionist and her husband did approach the police for taking action against the accused persons, but police did not take any action against the accused . It has further been argued that Ld Trial Court did not appreciate the fact and wrongly held that the revisionist did not pursue her complaint before Delhi Commission for Women, in fact, it is the accused persons, who failed to appear before the Delhi Commission for Women.
9 On the other hand, Ld Counsels for the respondents have argued that Ld Trial Court has rightly dismissed the complaint of the complainant as there was no material to summon the accused persons and no offence is made out against the respondents.
Cr.Rev. No. 22/14 & 8164/16 Rakhee Nandwana vs state & ors Page 6 of 810 I have given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contentions, heard the arguments of Ld Counsel for revisionist and respondents and carefully perused the entire trial court record, including the complaint and various documents on record.
11 In the present matter, complainant, namely, Rakhee Nandwana, did not file any complaint against accused No.2 at the earliest possible opportunity. There is nothing on the record file to show that she had taken the remedial measures or had filed any complaint against accused no.2 at the earliest. Further, there is no medical evidence on the record file to support the version of the complainant to the effect that she was raped and molested by the accused as alleged. Last incident of molestation was dated 03/12/2008, and she had filed the complaint to the police on 29/01/09. Nothing has been explained, in the present case, as to why there was so much unexplained delay in filing the complaint to the police authorities. Ld Trial Court was also of the same view while observing that "The said delay was not explained satisfactorily" . There is nothing on the record file to show as to why the complainant did not file her compliant at the earliest possible opportunity. Further, the allegations of wrongful restraint, outraging the modesty and rape, were also not substantiated by the complainant as her version was found to be doubtful. It was surprising that complainant has alleged that accused persons must be summoned u/s 34 of IPC and U/s 120B of IPC.
12 In view of the above discussions, it is clear that Ld Trial Court was fully justified in dismissing the complaint filed by Complainant, Rakhee Nandwana, and there is no ground to set aside the impugned order, dated Cr.Rev. No. 22/14 & 8164/16 Rakhee Nandwana vs state & ors Page 7 of 8 13/01/2012, and criminal revision is dismissed being meritless.
13 Present Revision Petiton is, accordingly, is disposed of with the above directions.
14 A copy of this judgment be sent to learned Trial Court along with the trial court record.
15 File related to Revision Petition be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open court ( Ramesh Kumar)
on 31st of January 2017 ASJ/Special Judge (PC Act)(CBI)
South Distt: Saket Courts:
New Delhi
Cr.Rev. No. 22/14 & 8164/16 Rakhee Nandwana vs state & ors Page 8 of 8