Delhi District Court
Raman Bhatia vs State on 19 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUSHIL KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04 (NORTH),
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
CNR No. DLNT01-009655-2024
CR No. 1698/2024
RAMAN BHATIA
S/o Sh. Manohar Lal Bhatia,
R/o G-8/31, 02nd and 03rd Floor, Block-G, Pocket-8,
Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi-110085.
.....Revisionist
VS.
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
.....Respondent
Date of institution of revision : 12.07.2024
Date on which judgment pronounced : 19.07.2025
JUDGMENT
1. This is a revision petition filed by the revisionist under section 438 BNSS for setting-aside the impugned order dated 22.04.2024 (hereinafter referred to as impugned order) passed by the Court of Ld. MM, Mahila Court-01, North-District, Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as Ld. Trial Court) in Criminal Case No.1498/2021, FIR bearing No. 227/2020 PS Prashant Vihar, titled as 'State Vs. Raman Bhatia' whereby the charge for the offences punishable U/s 354A/342 IPC was framed against the revisionist / accused Raman Bhatia.
Digitally
signed by
SUSHIL
Raman Bhatia Vs State SUSHIL KUMAR Page No.1 of 10
CR No. 1698/2024 KUMAR Date:
2025.07.19
17:48:17
+0530
2. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Revisionist has moved the present revision petition on the following grounds :
(i) Because the impugned order of Ld. Trial Court is ex facie illegal, unwarranted, unlawful perverse and contrary to the facts and law.
(ii) Because the Ld. Trial Court has not appreciated the facts of the case in right and just perspective and there is material irregularity and illegal in the order which has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
(iii) Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that there is no legally admissible evidence against the petitioner and any material of being converted into legally admissible evidence against the petitioner.
(iv) Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that there is a huge delay in registration of FIR / lodging of the complaint. That the victim alleges the incident of 25.05.2019 but the complaint was made after a period of more than a year i.e., only on 31.08.2020. That the said delay clearly shows the complaint of the victim is ill motivated and false and frivolous.
(v) Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the victim alleges the incident on 25.05.2019, however, as per the Raman Bhatia Vs State Digitally Page No.2 of 10 CR No. 1698/2024 signed by SUSHIL SUSHIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.07.19 17:48:21 documents, he was not in Delhi and was in Chennai on that day. That documents which is part of the charge-sheet and filed by IO which shows that the accused / petitioner was in Chennai on that day. The documents which is part of the charge-sheet and filed by the IO which shows that the accused/petitioner was in Chennai for attending a training programme Quantum Leap Mastermind. The details of documents are Flight Ticket, Google timeline, which shows real time location of the accused of the relevant time which shows of chennai, photographs of the even attended by accused in Chennai, invoices of Cab used in Chennai and whatsapp conversation with victim as she was Executive Assistant of the accused which clearly shows that on 25.05.2019, the accused was in Chennai.
(vi) Because the Ld. MM failed to appreciate that the IO nowhere denied in respect of the averment of the accused that at relevant time, he was in Chennai and attending a training Programme Quantum Leap Mastermind. The reason is quite simple that the IO might verified the same which is required to do so, being part of Investigation and he might have verified from attendees list and also from the organizer of the programmer.
(vii) Because the Ld. MM failed to appreciate that the falsity of the claim of the victim can be seen from the fact that she is Digitally Raman Bhatia Vs State signed by Page No.3 of 10 CR No. 1698/2024 SUSHIL SUSHIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.07.19 17:48:28 +0530 alleging that the room of the accused can be opened by the accused only as the button is besides his chair, whereas the photographs on record, clearly shows that the unlock button is just adjacent to the door.
(viii) Because the Ld. MM failed to appreciate that the prosecution failed to examine any other witness much less the peon/office boy, who used to lock the office.
(ix) Because the Ld. MM failed to appreciate that the number of employees are working in the office and even the wife of the accused who is also director in the company is having the cabin near to the cabin of the accused.
(x) Because the Ld. MM failed to appreciate that after the alleged incident the victim continued to work at the office.
(xi) Because the Ld. MM failed to appreciate that vide resignation e-mail dated 31.05.2019, the victim resigned from her employment and in the said email, there is no averment in respect to these false and frivolous allegations and moresoever, the reason is work pressure. It is important to mention that the victim's inability to perform her duties effectively, incomplete tasks and tendency to create disorder has been well-
Digitally signed by SUSHIL SUSHIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
Raman Bhatia Vs State 2025.07.19
17:48:32
Page No.4 of 10
CR No. 1698/2024 +0530
documented in the emails and whatsapp chats which are part of the charge-sheet.
(xii) Because Ld. MM failed to appreciate that the victim has already accepted her full and final settlement vide email dated 13.06.2019.
(xiii) Because the Ld. MM failed to appreciate that the victim is stating different versions, at different stages, as such her version cannot be believed at all.
(xiv) Because the Ld. MM failed to appreciate that the prosecution has cited Mr. Nimesh Malhotra as a witness and his reply which is part of charge-sheet clearly supports the version of the accused.
(xv) Because the Ld. MM failed to appreciate that the instant complaint / FIR is totally false and is an abuse of the process of law.
3. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for Revisionist that the revisionist has been falsely implicated as the present complaint has been filed after delay of 15 days. It has been further argued that as per the complaint, the alleged incident happened on 25.05.2019 but accused was not in Delhi on 25.05.2019 and he was in Chennai Raman Bhatia Vs State Digitally Page No.5 of 10 CR No. 1698/2024 signed by SUSHIL SUSHIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.07.19 17:48:36 +0530 on the relevant date. It is further argued that flight ticket of revisionist / accused and payment receipt of cab in Chennai is already on record. It is also argued that complainant could not adjust in the office of the accused and accused scolded him for not doing the task assigned to her properly. It is prayed that revision petition filed by revisionist may kindly be allowed and revisionist / accused Raman Bhatia may kindly be discharged from the charge for the offence punishable U/s 354A/342 IPC.
4. On the other hand, Ld. APP for State / Respondent has opposed the contentions made by Ld. Counsel for revisionist / accused and submits that there is enough material available on record, which enables the Court to frame charge. Ld. Addl. PP for State / Respondent has vehemently opposed the present revision petition and prayed that the present revision petition may kindly be dismissed. He has further argued that revision petition is not maintainable as charge has been framed only on the basis of material available on record.
5. I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced on behalf of ld. Counsel for the revisionist/accused as well as Ld. Addl PP for State / Respondent. This Court has also perused the record.
Digitally signed by SUSHIL SUSHIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.07.19 17:48:41 Raman Bhatia Vs State +0530 Page No.6 of 10 CR No. 1698/2024
6. In the present case, Trial Court Record has been summoned and the same has been carefully perused. Perusal of the Trial Court Record shows that the FIR in the instant case was registered on the basis of the hand written complaint of the Complainant dated 31.08.2020 wherein the complainant has leveled specific allegations against revisionist / accused Raman Bhatia that on 25.05.2019, revisionist called complainant in his cabin for some work who was his immediate boss. Further, complainant has leveled a specific allegations against the revisionist / accused that complainant went to his cabin and accused asked her to come near and hugged him. Further, it is alleged by complainant that the cabin of accused was automated and lock controlled, therefore, she could not rush out of his cabin till the time he himself pressed the button beside the chair. That, complainant request accused to use washroom and then accused opened the door. Thus, there are specific allegations of committing the offence of under section 354A/342 IPC against the revisionist.
7. Perusal of the Trial Court Record further shows that statement of complainant was also got recorded by IO from Ld. MM, North- District, Rohini Courts, Delhi wherein she has leveled similar allegations except some improvement. She has made improvement in her statement under section 164 Cr.PC that the revisionist / accused had also tried to kiss her. She has also stated in her statement under section 164 Cr. PC that the incident Raman Bhatia Vs State CR No. 1698/2024 SUSHIL Page No.7 of 10 KUMAR Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR Date: 2025.07.19 17:48:45 +0530 in question had occurred in between 25 th May 2019 to 27th May 2019. Perusal of the Trial Court Record further, a screen shot of whatsapp chat between complainant and wife of revisionist / accused was also collected by the IO wherein the complainant had made complaint of revisionist / accused to his wife. Perusal of the said message sent by whatsapp to the wife of revisionist / accused shows that the mention of incident in question has been done by complainant and she has made complaint against revisionist / accused in the said message.
8. Ld. Counsel for revisionist has contended that revisionist / accused has been falsely implicated in the present FIR case and that he was not even present in Delhi on 25.05.2019. He has relied upon copies of flights tickets of revisionist / accused and payment receipts for the cabs booked by him in Chennai. Further, a screen shot of the whatsapp chat between revisionist / accused and complainant are also relied upon by revisionist / accused and it is argued that the said whatsapp chat also shows that revisionist / accused was in Chennai at the relevant period. However, the arguments advanced on behalf of revisionist / accused are not acceptable as no investigation has been conducted by IO with respect to the afore-mentioned flights tickets, cab receipts and whatsapp chats. The said documents have been supplied by revisionist / accused along with reply of notice under section 41 A Cr. PC served to him by IO. However, Raman Bhatia Vs State CR No. 1698/2024 SUSHIL Page No.8 of 10 KUMAR Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR Date: 2025.07.19 no investigation has been conducted by the IO in this respect. Further, no boarding pass has been filed on behalf of revisionist / accused to show the fact that he actually boarded the flight to Chennai on 25.05.2019. No CDR has been filed by revisionist / accused to show that he was actually in Chennai during the relevant period. Further, cab can be easily booked for one place to another place in Chenna while sitting in Delhi with the help of various applications available on-line. It has also come in the statement of complainant that the incident had occurred in between 25th May to 27th May-2019. The plea of alibi taken by revisionist / accused can be decided only after conducting trial.
9. It is important to mention that at the stage of framing of charge, Court has to see whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. It is axiomatic that even the strong suspicion that the accused has committed the crime, is sufficient to frame the charges. It is also well settled that the standard of proof adhered to at the final decision of the case is not to be adopted at the stage of framing of charge. The Court is not to appreciate or weigh the evidence, which the prosecution proposes to lead during the trial. Even, otherwise, the veracity of the complainant can only be ascertained after recording her evidence in the Court. In the present case, from perusal of the Trial Court Record, this Court is of view that Ld. Trial Court has rightly framed charge against present revisionist Raman Bhatia Vs State CR No. 1698/2024 SUSHIL Page No.9 of 10 KUMAR Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR Date: 2025.07.19 as the record available before Ld. Trial Court was sufficient to make an opinion that prima facie charge for the offence punishable under section 354A/342 IPC was made against present revisionist Raman Bhatia.
10. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of view that there is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order dated 22.04.2024 passed by Ld. Trial Court. Same is accordingly upheld and the present revision petition is hereby dismissed.
11. A copy of this order be given to Revisionist and be also sent to the Ld. Trial Court along with the TCR immediately.
12. Revision file be consigned to Record Room after due Digitally signed compliance. SUSHIL by SUSHIL KUMAR Date: KUMAR 2025.07.19 17:48:59 +0530 Announced in the Open Court (Sushil Kumar) On 19th of July, 2025. Addl. Sessions Judge: 04 (North) Rohini Courts: Delhi.
19.07.2025.
Raman Bhatia Vs State Page No.10 of 10 CR No. 1698/2024