Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. Learned senior counsel has informed this Court which is not disputed that on 10.04.2017, Ld. ASJ, FTC, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi was pleased to acquit Sumit Walia in FIR 280/2013 registered with PS Vasant Vihar, u/s 376/406/506 IPC.
10. Mrs.Rebeeca M. John, learned senior counsel submitted that FIR itself reveals that complainant preferred a complaint only on 08.04.2014 for the alleged incident which took place on 12.08.2013 i.e. after a delay of about 8 months (240 Days). The said delay has not been explained anywhere. Even as per the complainant after 12.12.2013, she did not communicate with petitioner. The complainant herself states in her complaint that she had made representations to police on 12.12.2013 vide DD No. 79b, she again filed an application dated 28.01.2014 vide DD No. 47b and to DCP on 29.01.2014 vide DD No. 292 yet no complaint was made regarding the allegations of rape dated 12.08.2013 or non-payment of monies under agreement dated 13.02.2012 or the fact that petitioner had resumed relation with the complainant on the pretext of marriage to avoid payment of Rs.9 Crores.
12. It does appear that in the first head of charge on the allegations concerning the offence under Section 316 IPC, no' specific dates have been indicated. But it has to be remembered that the version of the prosecutrix is that she had been raped multiple times over the period which, given the plea of the petitioner himself, might run into more than two years, may be for almost five years. If the prosecutrix has not remembered the specific dates on which she was raped, the charge cannot mention the specific dates. It will be for the petitioner to bring out necessary facts, if possible, during the cross-examination.

61. It is pertinent to mention here that on 10.04.2017, Ld. ASJ, was pleased to acquit Sumit Walia in FIR 280/2013 registered with PS Vasant Vihar, u/s 376/406/506 IPC.

62. The present FIR itself reveals that complainant preferred a complaint only on 08.04.2014 for the alleged incident which took place on 12.08.2013 i.e. after a delay of about 8 months (240 Days). The said delay has not been explained anywhere. Even as per the complainant, after 12.12.2013, she did not communicate with petitioner. The complainant herself states in her complaint that she had made representations to police on 12.12.2013 vide DD No. 79b, she again filed an application dated 28.01.2014 vide DD No. 47b and to DCP on 29.01.2014 vide DD No. 292 yet no complaint was made regarding the allegations of rape dated 12.08.2013 or non-payment of monies under agreement dated 13.02.2012 or the fact that petitioner had resumed relation with the complainant on the pretext of marriage to avoid payment of Rs.9 Crores. Moreover, from September, 2012 till April, 2014, complainant was in contact with various police officials and lawyers in connection with various complaint preferred by her, yet no complaint was made regarding alleged incident dated 12.08.2013 or non-payment of monies under agreement dated 13.02.2012.