Delhi District Court
Ms A vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 27 March, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ARUL VARMA, ASJ-04 AND
SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS) SOUTH-EAST: SAKET COURTS: NEW
DELHI
Cr No. 484 of 2022
Ms A.
..........Revisionist
Vs.
1 State of NCT Of Delhi
Through The SHO
PS Defence Colony
2. Veer Singh
S/o Bhai Analjit Singh
R/o 1, South End. Rajesh Pilot Lane
New Delhi-110003
3. Bhai Analjit Singh
S/o Late Bhai Mohan Singh
R/o 15, APJ Abdul Kalam,
New Delhi
4. Tara Singh Vachani
w/o Sahil Vachani
R/o 2, South End. Rajesh Pilot Lane
5. Sahil Vachani
S/o Ravi Vachani
R/o 2 South End.Rajesh Pilot Lane
New Delhi-110003
6. Neelu Analjit Singh
W/o Bhai Analjit Singh
R/o 15,APJ Abdul Kalam
New Delhi . ..........Respondents
Instituted on : 23.11.2022
Argued on : 27.03.2023
Decided on : 27.03.2023
CR 484/2022 Ms. A vs . State Page No. 1/21
ORDER
1. Vide this order, this Court shall adjudicate the Criminal Revision filed by revisionist seeking to set aside impugned order dated 22.10.2022, passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, whereby the application u/s 156(3) r/w 200 CrPC, filed by the revisionist/complainant, was dismissed.
IMPUGNED ORDER FACTS
2. The facts of the case are hereby succinctly recapitulated: It was alleged that the revisionist Ms A. was induced by the respondent Veer Singh to cohabit with him and to establish sexual relations with him after performing a sham marriage ceremony. It is alleged that respondent as committed rape upon her as sheentered into sexual relations withhim on the belief that she is lawfully married to him, and that he is her husband. It was submitted that the respondent Veer Singh and his family members organized a marriage ceremony on 04.12.2018 in Taiwan and also organized post wedding ceremonies like grih pravesh and dhol ceremony. A child was begotten from this relationship. It is a case of the complainant/revisionist Ms A that in May, 2020, Veer Singh got her and the child moved to a rented accommodation in Defence Colony, and expressed that he did not want to cohabit with the complainant/revisionist any longer, and also asked for the custody of the child. In essence, it is the claim of the revisionist that the respondent is disowning the factum of CR 484/2022 Ms. A vs . State Page No. 2/21 marriage. Thus, the revisionist has remonstrated that an FIR be registered u/s 376 /493/496/120B IPC as she was induced to cohabit and have sexual relations with Veer Singh without her consent.
3. It was also alleged that the sham ceremony was orchestrated pursuant to conspiracy hatched by Veer Singh and his other family members. The revisionist also alleged that not only she has been deceived, but the respondent Veer Singh obstructed her movements and also followed and observed her without her consent. Thus, it was alleged that the FIR should also be registered u/s 341/342/344/354 C/354 D/420/506/120B IPC r/w Section 81 JJ Act, 2015.
4. Detailed enumeration of the above allegations were brought to the notice of the police vide DD no. 41A dated 20.02.2021 and Diary no 412/LC dated 14.07.2022. However, no action was taken by the police and therefore, the revisionist was constrained to file an application u/s 156(3) Cr.PC to get an FIR registered.
5. Pursuant to the filing of the application u/s 156(3) CrPC, an Action Taken Report from the police was called for, by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate.
FINDINGS OF THE LD TRIAL COURT
6. After perusing the documents adduced on record, the Ld Trial Court opined that it is not a fit case where direction should be issued for registration of FIR. Thus, vide order dated 22.10.2022, Ld. Trial Court CR 484/2022 Ms. A vs . State Page No. 3/21 dismissed the application u/s 156(3) r/w 200 Cr.PC, filed by the revisionist and granted opportunity to complainant to lead Pre- summoning evidence. The revisionist has assailed the above order dated 22.10.2022 by filing the present Criminal Revision Petition. CONTENTIONS OF LD. COUNSELS FOR THE REVISIONIST AND RESPONDENTS
7. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the victim herein cohabited and entered into sexual relations with the respondent only on the basis of the purported marriage ceremony. It was submitted that the photographs adduced on record evince the factum of a marriage ceremony being performed. It was submitted that there are clear cut allegations against the respondents which disclose the commission of cognizable offences, and for which police investigation is imperative.
8. To fortify her submissions, Ld Counsel for the revisionist referred to a litany of judgments, under the following sub heads:
A. Consent obtained for sexual intercourse on the pretext of lawful marriage to woman amounts to rape:
1. Chanchal v State & Ors Crl Rev P No. 366/2008
2. Mahindra & Ors. V State NCT of Delhi Crl. Appeal No. 388/2016
3. Suparna Mukherjee v State of West Bengal 2017 Cri LJ 3098
4. State v Mahesh Chand & Anr. Crl Rev P No. 594/2017.
B. Section 376 IPC can lie in live-in relationships:
1. Anil Dutt Sharma v UOI 2015 SCC OnLine Del 7615 C. DV Complaint cannot be quashed on the sole ground that accused has CR 484/2022 Ms. A vs . State Page No. 4/21 been acquitted in Sec 376 IPC:
1. K.G Vijayakumar v Manjula 2014 SCC OnLine Kar 5400 D. Proceedings under private complaint are maintainable even after filing of DV proceedings:
1. Pradyumna S Harish v State ILR 2010 KAR 4217 E. Offence u/s 493 IPC is made out if man makes the woman believe they are married:
1. Ram Chandra Bhagat v State of Jharkhand (2013) 1 SCC 562 F. Charge u/s 493 IPC and u/s 376 IPC can lie together:
1. Ashim Kumar Ghosh v State of West Bengal 2013 SCC OnLine Cal 5037
2. Vinod Sharma v State 2011 SCC OnLine Del 2807 G. Magistrate should order registration u/s 376 IPC when application u/s 156(3) CrPC is filed by complainant:
1. XYZ v State of Madhya Pradesh 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1002 H. A person can be prosecuted in both civil and criminal proceedings together:
1. Lalmuni Devi v State of Bihar (2001) 2 SCC 17
9. A further index of additional judgments was filed by the revisionist viz. Bhupinder Singh v UT of Chandigarh (2008) 8 SCC 531, Yogendra Kumar Rai v State of Uttarakhand Crl Misc. Appl 452/2011, Tapas Kumar v State of MP M. Cr No 4025/2014, Syed Shahnawaz Hussain v State & Anr. 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2428.
10. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for respondent submitted that there was substantial delay on the part of the revisionist in filing the criminal complaint. It was submitted that admittedly the parties separated in CR 484/2022 Ms. A vs . State Page No. 5/21 January, 2021, but it was only in July, 2022 that she filed the complaint. It was also submitted that there are ongoing disputes between the parties at various forums. It was further submitted that the revisionist made contrary statements in civil and criminal proceeding. It was submitted that in the proceedings pending under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, she averred that the she and the respondent underwent a marriage ceremony whereas in the Criminal complaint she is claiming that a sham marriage ceremony was conducted by the respondent.
11. It was highlighted by Ld. Counsel for respondent that a perusal of the emails exchange between the parties would reveal that the respondent Veer Singh had no intentions of marrying the revisionist, and such intention was conveyed to her. It was submitted that the seed of relationship was not based on marriage. It was submitted that there was representation of marriage made by the respondent to the revisionist. It was submitted that the revisionist herself was looking for marriage alliances elsewhere.
12.Lastly, it was submitted that the at this stage, the revisionist court cannot re-evaluate the facts as determined by the Ld. Magistrate. It was submitted that there is illegality or perversity in order dated 22.10.2022 passed by the Ld. MM, and as such the present revision petition ought to be dismissed as not being maintainable.
CR 484/2022 Ms. A vs . State Page No. 6/21
13. To buttress his arguments, Ld Counsel for the respondents placed reliance on Deepak Gulati v State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675, Mahesh Balkrishna Dandane v State of Maharashtra 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 348, Anand Kaushal v State GNCTD 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2475, Sonu @Subhash Kumar v State of UP & Anr 2021 SCC OnLine SC 181, Shailendra Kumar Yadav v State 2022 SCC OnLine Del 976 and Shambhu Kharwar v State of UP & Anr. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1032.
14.Thus, it was submitted by Ld Counsel for the respondent that the Ld. Trial Court has correctly dismissed the application u/s 156(3) CrPC vide the impugned order dated 22.10.2022.
15.In rebuttal, Ld. Counsel for revisionist invited the Court's attention to letters dated 20.01.2021 and 20.02.2021 to contend that the revisionist acted with reasonable alacrity in airing her grievances before the police authorities. She submitted that the emails on which the respondent was placing reliance on, were sent way before the ceremony in question were took place. She attributed the contents of the emails to mercurial and erratic nature of the respondent. She has also doubted the veracity of such emails.
16.Ld. Addl PP for State and the IO, who were present in the Court also brought to the fore that as per the subsequent opinion taken by the Ld Assistant Public Prosecutor and the Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor, an CR 484/2022 Ms. A vs . State Page No. 7/21 FIR ought to have been registered in the present matter.
17. Submissions heard.
DECISION SECTION 375 IPC r/w SECTION 120B IPC
18. At the outset, it would pertinent to note that the judgments relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent pertain to instances where there was sexual intercourse on the pretext of marriage or on the basis of false promise of marriage on breach of promise of marriage. However, the present case pivots around the allegation that the respondent induced Ms A to reel under a misconception of fact viz. that she is lawfully married to him. It is on the basis of this misconception of fact that the respondent established sexual relations with her. Thus, it is a case where prima facie there are allegations of commission of sexual intercourse without the consent of revisionist.
19.Ld. Counsel for revisionist had alleged that Veer Singh and his relatives had orchestrated a Budhist Marriage ceremony in Taiwan with the intention to later disown it. It has been brought to the fore that Veer Singh engaged in sexual intercourse with her by obtaining her consent on the basis of deception. During the course of arguments, it was contended that both clause 2 and clause 4 of Section 375 IPC are attracted in the present case.
CR 484/2022 Ms. A vs . State Page No. 8/21
20.Clause fourthly of Section 375 IPC lays down that a man is said to commit rape when he has sexual intercourse with a woman with her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married.
21.To fortify her submissions, Ld. Counsel had placed reliance on Mahendra v State (NCT of Delhi) 2018 SCC OnLine Del 9459 , wherein it was observed as follows;
"31.Two questions, therefore, would arise in the present case, i.e. (i ) whether the prosecutrix 'M' was lawfully married to Mahendra and,
(ii) if not, whether she consented to sexual relations with Mahendra because she believed herself to be lawfully married to him.
32.It is only if the answer to the first question is in the negative, and the answer to the second question is in the positive, that Mahendra could be alleged to have committed the offence of rape, under clause "Fourthly" of Section 375 of the IPC"
22. A perusal of record reveals that a ceremony was conducted between the parties in Taiwan, and some post wedding functions were also organized. A perusal of the photographs and videos produced on record reveals prima facie certain essential ceremonies of a de rigueur marriage were performed viz applying of vermillion on the forehead, garlanding each other, applying mehndi and grih pravesh. Such a ceremony is bound to induce the revisionist to believe that a lawful marriage was entered into, and on this basis she agreed to cohabit and have sexual intercourse with CR 484/2022 Ms. A vs . State Page No. 9/21 Veer Singh. Thus, prima facie she was induced to believe that she was lawfully married to Veer Singh. This belief further gets fortified from a perusal of the facebook posts whereby the sister of Veer Singh has congratulated them on their marriage, voice chat of father of Veer Singh, who has welcomed Ms A into the family and by other congratulations messages brought on record.
23. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the respondent adverted to certain emails exchanged between the parties to contend that Veer Singh had no intention to marry Ms A, and that both of them had agreed to be in this relationship without a marriage. This contention of Ld. Counsel cannot be countenanced inasmuch as the abstruse personal messages exchanged between the parties do not unequivocally establish the claim of the respondent. Moreover, the messages were exchange prior in time from the date of the marriage. Significantly, these messages pale into insignificance especially in light of the ceremonies that were actually conducted, which gave a semblance of a marriage.
24. As far as the element of conspiracy of other family members of Veer Singh is concerned, the same are bereft of any justification at this juncture. There is nothing of on record to arrive at a conclusion that the revisionist was induced to undergo the marriage ceremony on the basis of deception practiced by other family members. It is true that the other family members participated in the ceremony and even offered CR 484/2022 Ms. A vs . State Page No. 10/21 congratulations, but it cannot be said that they induced her to undergo such ceremony in order to intentionally aid Veer Singh to commit the offences of enumerated in the petition. As such there seems to be no basis as arraigning other family members of Veer Singh as accused. SECTION 493 & 496 IPC
25.Section 493 IPC penalizes a man, who by deceit, causes any woman who is not lawfully married to him, to believe that she is lawfully married to him and to cohabit or have sexual intercourse with him in that belief. In the present case, Ld Counsel for the revisionist placed reliance on certain photographs to demonstrate that the respondent Veer Singh put vermillion in the parting of the revisionist's hair and put mehndi of his name on his hand. The respondent refuted this contention by claiming that it was a tilak ceremony and there was no deposit of sindoor on the revisionist's forehead. However, this contention of the respondent cannot be countenanced at all. A perusal of the photograph in question at Annexure A-10 belies the blatant assertions of the respondent in toto. The photograph prima facie makes it explicit that vermillion is being put on the forehead, on the parting of the hair of the revisionist.
26. In Suren Orang v. State of Assam, 2005 SCC OnLine Gau 167 the Hon'ble High Court explicitly ordained that the act of putting vermillion on the forehead tantamounts to inducing a woman to believe that she is lawfully married to the man. The following extracts of the above verdict CR 484/2022 Ms. A vs . State Page No. 11/21 make the position of law pellucid:
"6. Under Section 493 IPC every man who by deceit causes any woman who is not lawfully married to him to believe that she is lawfully married to him and to cohabit or have sexual intercourse with him in that belief, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. The essential ingredient for committing the offence under Section 493 are - (a) deceit causing false belief of existence of a lawful marriage and (b) cohabitation or sexual intercourse with the person causing such belief. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses as scanned above disclose that the petitioner by coming to the residence of the victim girl in the absence of her parents put vermilion on her forehead and induced her to believe that by such putting of vermilion on her forehead he has married her and thus obtaining consent caused sexual intercourse with her. Thus, the evidence on record amply proves that the prosecution has been able to prove that the accused has practiced deceit and by that deceit made the PW 2, who is not his wife, believe herself to be lawfully wedded to him and thereby she had sexual intercourse with the accused."
27.Further, it was argued by the respondent that since the revisionist was a Hindu by religion, she never asked for a proper marriage as per customs nor got the marriage registered. It was further argued that the respondent is a Sikh by religion and his earlier marriage was also through the Anand Karaj Ceremony with proper circumambulation of the Holy Guru Granth Sahib, which did not happen in the present case. Thus, it was contended that no marriage ceremony, as per rites and rituals of the religion of the parties, was conducted, and that the relationship between the parties was simply to co-parent the child. This contention is again devoid of any justification, and is to be trashed.
CR 484/2022 Ms. A vs . State Page No. 12/21
28.In Ram Chandra Bhagat v. State of Jharkhand , (2013) 1 SCC 562, after the matter was referred by a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it was laid down in trenchant terms as thus:
"19. If a woman is induced to change her status from that of an unmarried to that of a married woman with all the duties and obligations pertaining to the changed relationship and that result is accomplished by deceit, such woman within the law can be said to have been deceived and the offence under Section 493 IPC is brought home. Inducement by a person deceitfully to a woman to change her status from unmarried woman to a lawfully married woman and on that inducement making her cohabit with him in the belief that she is lawfully married to him is what constitutes an offence under Section 493. The victim woman has been induced to do that which, but for the false practice, she would not have done and has been led to change her social and domestic status. The ingredients of Section 493 can be said to be fully satisfied when it is proved -- (a) deceit causing a false belief of existence of a lawful marriage, and (b) cohabitation or sexual intercourse with the person causing such belief. It is not necessary to establish the factum of marriage according to personal law but the proof of inducement by a man deceitfully to a woman to change her status from that of an unmarried to that of a lawfully married woman and then make that woman cohabit with him establishes an offence under Section 493 IPC
20. When the criminal appeal came up for hearing before a two-Judge Bench [Ram Chandra Bhagat v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 13 SCC 780] , the Judges differed in their views. One of the Judges, Markandey Katju, J., held that Section 493 IPC was not attracted as there was no proof of lawful marriage although the appellant lived with the complainant for nine years and had two children by her. On the other hand, the other Judge, Gyan Sudha Misra, J. was of the view that for an offence under Section 493 there should be an inducement of belief in the woman that she was lawfully married to the accused and the inducement of belief of a lawful marriage cannot be interpreted so as to mean or infer that the marriage necessarily had to be in accordance with any custom or ritual or under the Special Marriage Act. She observed as follows: (Ram Charan Bhagat case [Ram Chandra Bhagat v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 13 SCC 780] , SCC pp. 786-87, para 26) CR 484/2022 Ms. A vs . State Page No. 13/21 "26. Section 493 IPC in my opinion does not presuppose a marriage between the accused and the victim necessarily by following a ritual or marriage by customary ceremony. What has been clearly laid down and emphasised is that there should be an inducement of belief in the woman that she is lawfully married to the appellant-accused and the inducement of belief of a lawful marriage cannot be interpreted so as to mean or infer that the marriage necessarily had to be in accordance with any custom or ritual or under the Special Marriage Act. If the evidence on record indicates inducement of a belief in any manner in the woman which cannot possibly be enlisted but from which it can reasonably be inferred by ordinary prudence that she is a lawfully married wife of the man accused of an offence under Section 493 IPC, the same will have to be treated as sufficient material to bring home the guilt under Section 493 IPC. Interpretation of the section in any other manner including an assertion that the marriage should have been performed by customary rituals or in similar manner only in order to establish that a belief of marriage had been induced, is bound to frustrate the very object and purpose of the provision for which it has been incorporated in the Penal Code which is clearly to prevent the deceitful act of a man inducing the belief of a lawful marriage for the purpose of cohabitation merely to satisfy his lust for sexual pleasure."
21. We find ourselves in complete agreement with the position stated above"
29.The above verdict drives home the point that in order to invoke Section 493 IPC, it is not imperative that the sham marriage ceremony would have the trappings of a de rigueur marriage. It would suffice if the woman is made to believe that she was lawfully married to the man, be it by putting vermillion over the head, circumambulating around the chosen deity, garlanding each other etc. Also, in terms of Section 496 IPC, there are allegations that the respondent, with a fraudulent intention, went through the ceremony of marriage, knowing that he is not thereby CR 484/2022 Ms. A vs . State Page No. 14/21 lawfully married. Thus, Section 493 and Section 496 IPC are prima facie made out qua the respondent Veer Singh in the present case.
SECTION 417/420 IPC
30.It was contended that the respondent has cheated the revisionist herein. It was specifically averred in her complaint that it was on account of the elaborate charade put up by the respondents that the revisionist was induced to cohabit and have sexual relations with him. On the other hand, Ld Counsel for the respondent contended that both of them were in a consensual sexual relationship. Prima facie, by the acts of the respondents, harm has been caused to the revisionist in mind, body and reputation. The veracity of the claims can be determined only when true facts are revealed, for which investigation is imperative.
31.In this regard, it would be apt to refer to Ramesh Chandra Jena v. State of Orissa, 2007 SCC OnLine Ori 355 where the petitioners challenged the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence punishable under sections 493/417 of I.P.C. It was held as thus :
"6. Section 415 of I.P.C. defines cheating as hereunder-- Cheating.--Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat"."
7. This section consists of two parts. The first part relates to property whereas the second part need not relate to it. CR 484/2022 Ms. A vs . State Page No. 15/21 In the case at hand, because of the false promise made by petitioner No. 1 to marry opposite party No. 2, believing it to be true, the latter submitted herself to him and they had sex. Had he not deceived her, opposite party No. 2, would not have given her consent to have sex with him. Because of the extra marital sexual intercourse, harm was caused to opposite party No. 2 in body, mind and reputation. So, there is prima facie material on record to proceed against petitioner No. 1 for the offence under section 417 of I.P.C".
32.In view of the above verdict, an FIR u/s 417 IPC is prima facie attracted qua the respondent Veer Singh.
SECTION 354C and 354D IPC
33.Section 354C contains the following words: "Any man who watches, or captures the image of a woman engaging in a private act in circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of not being observed either by the perpetrator or by any other person at the behest of the perpetrator". Insertion of Section 354C in the IPC is perhaps one of the seminal amendments ushered in ostensibly to protect primarily bodily autonomy. It cannot be gainsaid that the home, especially the bedroom and bathroom provide sanctuary to a woman. The expectation of 'not being observed' in a private space is nothing but an extension of the fundamental right to privacy. This right inheres in a woman de hors the relationship she shares with the perpetrator. There is nothing in the Section which can be construed to grant any exemption to a husband or family member or a live in partner. Private acts, including but not limited to breastfeeding, daily ablutions etc. cannot be allowed to CR 484/2022 Ms. A vs . State Page No. 16/21 be observed by anyone other than the woman in question.
34.In the present case, allegations have been levelled by the revisionist that the respondent Veer Singh has committed the offence of voyeurism against her. In this regard, reliance was placed on letter dated 20.02.2021 written by the revisionist to SHO, PS Defence Colony. According to the same, the respondent Veer Singh placed CCTVs and baby monitors in the bedrooms and the lobby, and there are allegations of audio and video recording of the revisionist's movements without her consent and knowledge. It was specifically averred that "Veer and staff members had also video recorded me while I was changing my clothes or when I was breastfeeding my son' This allegation, which prima facie crosses all bounds of decency and makes a woman feel unsafe in her own abode, definitely needs to be probed by the police.
35. As far as the allegations qua stalking under Section 354D are concerned, it would be apt to reproduce the relevant portions of the provision : "Any man who (i) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; (ii)monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking."
36.There is nothing in the complaint to lend credence to the assertions that a case of stalking is made out, and as such no probe is required qua the same.
CR 484/2022 Ms. A vs . State Page No. 17/21 SECTIONS 341, 342, 344, 506 IPC and SECTION 81 JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE & PROTECTION OF CHILDREN ) ACT, 2015
37.According to the complaint made to the police, wherein letters dated 201.2021 & 20.02.2021 addressed to the SHO, PS Defence Colony were annexed, the revisionist has categorically mentioned the acts of wrongful confinement and restraint. It has been averred that she was not allowed to move beyond the four corners of the lobby of the house by deployment of a security guard/ bouncer outside the flat. The allegations are reflective of commission of offences u/s 341 and 342 of the IPC, and investigation needs to be conducted qua the above offences. However, the complaint is silent qua the commission of offences u/s 506 IPC or Section 81 of the JJ Act, 2015 as such no probe is required qua these offences. NECESSITY OF POLICE INVESTIGATION
38.In Skipper Beverages Pvt Ltd v State 92(2001) DLT 217 , it was ordained as thus:
"10. Section 156(3) of the Code aims at curtailing and controlling the arbitrariness on the part of the police authorities in the matter of registration of FIRs and taking up investigations, even in those cases where the same are warranted. The Section empower the Magistrate to issue directions in this regard but this provision should not be permitted to be misused by the complainants to get police cases registered even in those cases which are not very serious in nature and the Magistrate himself can hold enquiry under Chapter XV and proceed against the accused if required. Therefore a Magistrate, must apply his mind before passing an order under Section 156(3) of the Code and must not pass these orders mechanically on the mere asking by the complainant. These powers ought to be exercised primarily in those cases where the CR 484/2022 Ms. A vs . State Page No. 18/21 allegations are quite serious or evidence is beyond the reach of complainant or custodial interrogation appears to be necessary for some recovery of article or discovery of fact.
39. Recovery of phones of the respondents for messages/ WhatsAPP chats, and CCTV footages, sending them to FSL for integrity and veracity, are certainly out of the reach of the complainant. CCTV footage to establish incidents of stalking or voyeurism have to be obtained. Even the victim's statement u/s 164 CrPC has to be recorded and medical examination conducted in order to unearth the truth of the matter. Recording of statement of the Buddhist priest/ Rinpoche who conducted the ceremony, the people who attended the alleged wedding, grih pravesh, dhol and other ceremonies, the trader who printed the alleged wedding reception card, the venues where the ceremonies took place, the entries therein and payments made are other facets for which police investigation is thus imperative.
CONCLUSION
40. XYZ v State of Madhya Pradesh(supra) serves as a beacon for us to follow, especially in sexual assault cases necessitating police investigation. Therein, Hon'ble Justice D Y Chandrachud ordained as thus:
"Especially in cases alleging sexual harassment, sexual assault or any similar criminal allegation wherein the victim has possibly already been traumatized, the Courts should not further burden the complainant CR 484/2022 Ms. A vs . State Page No. 19/21 and should press upon the police to investigate. Due regard must be had to the fact that it is not possible for the complainant to retrieve important evidence regarding her complaint. It may not be possible to arrive at the truth of the matter in the absence of such evidence. The complainant would then be required to prove her case without being able to bring relevant evidence (which is potentially of great probative value) on record, which would be unjust."
41.The allegations as brought forth at this juncture, paint a portrait of a hapless woman left in a lurch. As per the allegations, the respondent disingenuously induced the revisionist to believe that they are lawfully married when they were not so married, then on the basis of this deceit had sexual relations and begotten a child, and then one fine day told the revisionist to pack her bags and left her stranded. If this be the case, it would be the solemn duty of the investigative agencies to legally redress her grievances. Also, to ignore the above narrated alleged conduct of the respondent, would be akin to giving a license to licentious men to break the law, and exploit autonomy of a woman with brazen impunity. Such an affront to dignity of a woman cannot be brushed under the carpet for it will compound her ignominy. Perhaps it was for instances like these that clause fourthly to Section 375 IPC and Section 493 IPC were enacted. To give teeth to these provisions, robust investigation is a sine qua non. It would be expedient in the interest of justice to investigate the cognizable offences alleged by the revisionist.
42. Ergo, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court deems it fit to allow CR 484/2022 Ms. A vs . State Page No. 20/21 the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the revisionists and thus, the impugned order dated 22.10.2022 passed by, Ld. MM, South-East, Saket Courts New Delhi is hereby set aside.
43.TCR, if any, alongwith copy of this order be sent to Ld. Trial Court for necessary information/ compliance. Copy of the order be also sent to SHO concerned to register an FIR qua the respondent Veer Singh herein within a week from today. Copy of the order be sent to the DCP concerned to ensure compliance. Report be filed on 03.04.2023.
44.Revision file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
45. Order be given dasti to parties and be uploaded on official website of District Courts as per rules.
Announced in the open court on 27th March, 2023 (ARUL VARMA) ASJ-04 & Spl. Judge (NDPS) South-East District Saket Courts, New Delhi CR 484/2022 Ms. A vs . State Page No. 21/21