Delhi High Court - Orders
Raja Singh vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 30 September, 2024
$~79
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 7721/2024
RAJA SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Sr.
Adv. with Mr. Anuj
Handa, Mr. Nishant
Kandpal & Mr. Shubham
Pandey, Advs.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam,
APP for the State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 30.09.2024 CRL.M.A. 29484/2024 (for exemption)
1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 7721/2024 & CRL.M.A. 29483/2024 (for stay)
3. The present petition is filed challenging the order dated 03.02.2024 (hereafter 'the impugned order') passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge ('ASJ') in case arising out of FIR No. 251/2022 under Sections 376/509/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
4. The learned ASJ, by the impugned order, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner seeking supply of statement of witnesses recorded during the investigation.
5. The FIR was registered on a complaint alleging rape. Further allegations were also made against the petitioner.
This is a digitally signed order. CRL.M.C. 7721/2024 Page 1 of 3The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/10/2024 at 22:52:16
6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, at the relevant time, was working as a Manager of the school where the complainant used to work as a Vice- Principal.
7. He submits that the complainant was suspended by a Show-Cause Notice dated 16.03.2022. He submits that the complainant, as a counter-blast, gave a complaint, for the first time, on 21.03.2022 against the petitioner regarding sexual harassment, however, no allegation in regard to rape was made. He submits that a subsequent complaint was made and notice was also issued to the Petitioner where also, no allegations in regard to rape was made by the prosecutrix.
8. He further vehemently contends that a writ petition was also filed before this Court by the complainant where also no allegation in regard to rape was made by the prosecutrix and, for the first time, on 20.05.2022, an FIR was registered wherein the allegations were made in regard to the alleged rape.
9. He submits that relevant documents evidencing the said fact were collected by the prosecution, however, the same were not relied upon by the prosecution at the time of filing of the chargesheet.
10. The necessary documents which clearly exonerates the petitioner of any allegation of rape were supplied to the petitioner under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
11. The petitioner is essentially aggrieved that the documents which, according to him, clearly exonerates him of any charge of rape, are not considered by the learned Trial Court at the time of arguments on charge.
12. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of This is a digitally signed order. CRL.M.C. 7721/2024 Page 2 of 3 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/10/2024 at 22:52:16 Shakuntala v. The State of Delhi : MANU/DE/7232/2007, wherein it was held that at the time of framing of charge, the Court has to consider the entire evidence collected by the prosecution and not merely the documents which are sought to be relied upon.
13. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State seeks time to address arguments.
14. List on 11.11.2024.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J SEPTEMBER 30, 2024 "SS"
This is a digitally signed order. CRL.M.C. 7721/2024 Page 3 of 3The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/10/2024 at 22:52:17