Delhi High Court - Orders
Xxx vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 9 November, 2022
Author: Jasmeet Singh
Bench: Jasmeet Singh
$~54
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.REV.P. 759/2022
XXX ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Abbot, Mr. Ankur Garg,
Mr. Devanshu Chauhan, Mr. Sanket
Khandelwal, Mr. Anant Nigam, Advs.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Aashneet Singh, APP for State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
ORDER
% 09.11.2022 CRL.M.A. 22820/2022
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
CRL.REV.P. 759/20223. This is a petition seeking setting aside of the order dated 30.08.2022 passed by ACMM, Patiala House Court, New Delhi wherein the protest petition dated 16.11.2020 and additional affidavit to the protest petition dated 01.04.2022 filed by the complainant against the closure report dated 15.09.2021 filed by the IO and the FIR No. 0112 u/s 342/328/354/506 R/376 IPC has been dismissed.
4. In the present case, the complainant/prosecutrix has filed an FIR on 27.02.2020 alleging rape.
5. It is stated in the complaint that on 10.06.2019, the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed byAMIT ARORA Signing Date:16.11.2022 12:46:14 complainant/prosecutrix had met the accused at Pride Plaza Hotel.
6. On the said date, the accused committed rape by lacing the drink of the complainant with intoxicants. When the complainant regained her consciousness, she found she was naked and the accused was holding a mobile phone in his hand. The accused informed her that he had taken videos and obscene photographs of her and also threatened her that in case of any alarm, he shall share the same on internet.
7. Due the said reason, the complainant/prosecutrix did not register any FIR. However, she was deeply depressed.
8. It is only upon gathering courage and persuasion from her friend, she gave a handwritten complaint to the SHO on 27.02.2020 after consulting with her lawyer.
9. On the complaint, FIR was registered, and statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded before the learned MM.
10. It is stated by Mr. Singh that on 26.05.2020, a statement of the complainant u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded and she was specifically asked by the IO as to how many mobile numbers she was using. The prosecutrix replied that she did not use any other mobile number other than the one mentioned in her hand written complaint dated 27.02.2020 but after filing the charge sheet she filed an additional affidavit in court stating that she used three more numbers and prayed that directions be passed to obtain CDR of those numbers.
11. Accordingly, CDR and CAF was obtained and it was found that on the date of incident, the complainant was not around Pride Plaza but was at Shalimar Bagh/Punjabi Bagh.
12. On 07.07.2020, the complaint made her supplementary statement to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed byAMIT ARORA Signing Date:16.11.2022 12:46:14 the DCP, wherein she stated that she did not wish to pursue the present case and that she was tutored by people of an unknown NGO and she was unsure whether she was raped or not by the accused.
13. On 11.07.2020, the complainant/prosecutrix herself came to the police station and handed over a typed signed statement running into 2 pages which reiterated the e-mail dated 07.07.2020 regarding her stand of not wanting to pursue her case.
14. The complainant also recorded an additional statement wherein she stated that at the time of recording her statement u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., she was pregnant and distressed as she was under medication. Hence, the IO filed cancellation report on 04.08.2021.
15. On filing of the cancellation report, the complainant filed protest petition.
16. The said protest petition was dismissed by the MM.
17. It is stated by Mr. Abott, learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, despite order by the competent court, the IO did not investigate or seized the mobile phone of the accused.
18. On 18.12.2021, the ACMM allowed the protest petition and directed to recover the mobile phone of the accused and send it to FSL for verification. The said was duly complied by the IO. The mobile phone of the accused was seized and sent to FSL, wherein the FSL has opined that there is nothing incriminating against the accused.
19. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 30.08.2022, for the following reasons:
1. The date of the alleged incident is 10.06.2019, whereas the FIR has been registered 8 months thereafter.Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed byAMIT ARORA Signing Date:16.11.2022 12:46:14
2. The CDR and CAF of the mobile phone shows the location of the prosecutrix not around Pride Plaza hotel, i.e. the place of incident, but rather shows it near Punjabi Bagh/Shalimar Bagh.
3. The FSL report does not find anything incriminating in the mobile phone of the accused.
4. The complainant has been giving changed versions of the incident as well as at times stating that she does not wish to prosecute the FIR.
20. I am also informed by Mr. Singh, on instructions of the IO, that an FIR has been registered against the complainant for extortion u/s 384 IPC.
21. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 30.08.2022 is in accordance with law based on facts and correct appreciation of law.
22. I find no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.
JASMEET SINGH, J NOVEMBER 9, 2022/dm Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed byAMIT ARORA Signing Date:16.11.2022 12:46:14