Kaushik Sen Gupta & Anr. v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi

1. By way of present revision petition filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.'), the petitioners seek setting aside of order dated 05.12.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (SFTC)-02, East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi ('learned ASJ') in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 619/2013, dated 29.11.2013, registered at Police Station New Ashok Nagar, Delhi under Sections 366//376/498A/406/506/328/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC').

2. The present FIR had been registered against the accused persons based on the complaint lodged by the complainant/respondent NO. 2who alleged that she had known petitioner no. 1 since childhood and she had even helped him in completing his Master's tourism project. It is stated that when the complainant had been looking for an internship opportunity during seventh semester of her college, petitioner no. 1 had offered her an internship at his workplace. It is stated that during this period, petitioner no. 1 had shared details about the ongoing problems in his matrimonial life. After the internship had got over, the petitioner no. 1 had continued to contact the complainant and had even asked her to marry him, but she had refused to do so. It is stated that on 12.02.2012, petitioner no. 1 had invited her for a lunch party at his house, as he had completed his Masters' course, where his family and friends were also supposed to join for the celebration. It is alleged that when the complainant had reached his house, she had discovered that there was no one except petitioner no. 1, who had informed her that he had already ordered the food and the guests were on their way. Thereafter, he had offered chips and cold drink to the complainant, and after consuming the same, she had become unconscious. It is alleged that when she had regained consciousness, she had found herself and petitioner no. 1 naked and petitioner no. 1 had threatened to make her intimate photographs and videos public. It is further alleged that the complainant had later got engaged to someone else but petitioner no. 1 had ultimately got their marriage cancelled. It is further alleged that in November, 2012, petitioner no. 1 had forced the complainant to go to Haridwar with him, by threatening to post her inappropriate photographs and videos online, and had established physical relations with her without her consent. It is also alleged that on 20.07.2013, the complainant had gone to Janpath for shopping with petitioner no. 1, and he had taken her to Arya Samaj Mandir, where arrangements for their marriage had already been made without her prior knowledge and even witnesses were present for the purposes of marriage. It is alleged that despite her objections, under the threat of making the photographs and videos public, the petitioner no. 1 had compelled her to marry him. After the marriage, it is alleged that petitioner no. 1 had asked the complainant to shift to his house, after which she had brought all her belongings including jewellery, books, clothes, documents, etc. to his house and the petitioner no. 1 had taken all her belongings. But thereafter, petitioner no. 1 had asked the complainant to go back to her house as he had not informed about the marriage to his parents yet. It is stated that the complainant had then returned to her home but a few days later, petitioner no. 1 had informed her that his mother wanted Rs. 6 lakhs for reception expenses, after hearing which, the complainant had even jumped from the first floor balcony of her parental house on 18.08.2023. It is further stated that to take revenge, petitioner no. 1 had posted their matrimonial photographs on her Facebook account and had even hacked her email id. A few days thereafter, petitioner no. 1 had also visited her parental house along with his father i.e. petitioner no. 2, who had also demanded Rs. 6 lakhs and an Alto car from the parents of the complainant, but her parents had refused to fulfil the said demand. A complaint had then been filed before CAW cell, and under societal pressure, the petitioner no. 1 had returned her belongings, except for gold jewellery.

3. On these allegations, the present FIR was registered. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the present case and the learned ASJ vide order dated 05.12.2017 had framed charges against the accused persons i.e. the petitioners herein under Sections 366/376/328/506 of IPC against petitioner no. 1 and under Sections 498A/406/34 of IPC against both the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case, on the basis of concocted and frivolous allegations levelled by the complainant/respondent no. 2. It is stated that petitioner no. 1 and the complainant had got married to each other on 20.07.2013 as both of them were in love with each other and that the complainant had signed an affidavit and had also put her thumb impression on the same. It is thus stated that the marriage between the parties was without any kind of pressure and without any demand of dowry whatsoever. It is also stated that during solemnization of marriage, various photographs had been taken in which the complainant can be seen to be very happy which shows that the allegations of forceful marriage are false in nature. It is argued that one month later, the father of complainant had got to know about their marriage and he had written an email to the complainant that they cannot accept petitioner no. 1 as their son-in-law and later, the complainant had been confined and locked in her parental home by her parents. It is further stated that thereafter, the father of complainant had tried to intimidate the petitioners and had demanded Rs. 5 lakhs as well as a house in the name of the complainant and had threatened to get a case registered against them if they failed to fulfill his demands. It is stated that the petitioners had tried to lodge a complaint against the complainant and her father which was not registered by the police, rather the present FIR was registered on the complaint lodged by the complainant containing false and frivolous allegations. It is stated that the MLC of the complainant does not support the case of prosecution. It is further stated that the priest at the temple where the marriage had been solemnised between petitioner NO. 1 and the complainant had also told the investigating officer that the marriage had taken place with consent of both the parties and there was no sign of any pressure on any of them. It is also stated that despite house search of petitioners, no stridhan was recovered to support the allegations of the complainant, and the documents of the temple where marriage had taken place were also found to be true and accurate. Thus, it is prayed that impugned order be set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant/ respondent no. 2 argues that this is a case of rape under intoxication, preparing intimate photos and videos of such heinous acts and then blackmailing with threats of disclosing the same. It is stated that the petitioner was aged about 40 years at the time of incident whereas the complainant was only about 21-22 years old and they both shared a relationship like brother and sister. It is stated that the petitioner was already married to another woman. Learned counsel further states that the complainant has levelled detailed and specific allegations against the petitioner in her complaint which had culminated into the present FIR and a prima facie case exists against the petitioner for the commission of offences alleged. It is stated that the petitioner no. 1 had committed rape upon the complainant after administering her intoxicating substance and had taken obscene photos and videos in a planned way which could be used for blackmailing. It is also stated that petitioner no. 1 had taken her to Haridwar without her consent and had established physical relations with her against her will. It is thus argued that present petition be dismissed.

6. Learned APP for the State argues that there are no reasons to interfere with the impugned order. It is stated that there was sufficient material on record to frame charges against the petitioners, considering the well-settled law on framing of charge.

7. The arguments addressed by both sides have been heard and the material on record has been perused.

8. As regards the settled law on exercise of powers under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. in a case challenging an order on charge, it will be relevant to take note of the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Manendra Prasad Tiwari v. Amit Kumar Tiwari 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1057, whereby it has been held as under:

The truthfulness, the sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced at the time of framing of a charge can be done only at the stage of trial. To put it more succinctly, at the stage of charge the Court is to examine the materials only with a view to be satisfied that prima facie case of commission of offence alleged has been made out against the accused person. It is also well settled that when the petition is filed by the accused under Section 482 CrPC or a revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC seeking for the quashing of charge framed against him, the Court should not interfere with the order unless there are strong reasons to hold that in the interest of justice and to avoid abuse of the process of the Court a charge framed against the accused needs to be quashed. Such an order can be passed only in exceptional cases and on rare occasions. It is to be kept in mind that once the trial court has framed a charge against an accused the trial must proceed without unnecessary interference by a superior court and the entire evidence from the prosecution side should be placed on record. Any attempt by an accused for quashing of a charge before the entire prosecution evidence has come on record should not be entertained sans exceptional cases.

22. The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of CrPC has been time and again explained by this Court. Further, the scope of interference under Section 397 CrPC at a stage, when charge had been framed, is also well settled. At the stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the material and form an opinion whether there is strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which if put to trial, could prove his guilt. The framing of charge is not a stage, at which stage the final test of guilt is to be applied. Thus, to hold that at the stage of framing the charge, the court should form an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is to hold something which is neither permissible nor is in consonance with the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure

23. Section 397 CrPC vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in the proceeding." (Emphasis supplied)

9. In the present case, this Court notes that the complainant has leveled specific allegations against petitioner no. 1 that on 12.02.2012, he had called her at his residence on the pretext that he had organised a lunch party, however upon reaching there, the complainant had found that there were no other guests, and petitioner no. 1 had thereafter administered some intoxicating substance to her due to which she had become unconscious and upon regaining consciousness, she had discovered that petitioner no. 1 had established physical relations with her and had taken inappropriate photographs and videos of the same. There are also allegations to the effect that petitioner no. 1 had forcefully taken the complainant to a hotel in Haridwar in November, 2012, under threat of making her inappropriate photographs and videos public, and had thereafter established physical relations with her against her consent. Further, the complainant had alleged that petitioner no. 1 had solemnized marriage with her forcefully but thereafter, he had started harassing her for the purpose of dowry and had demanded Rs. 6 lakhs from her. She had further alleged that petitioner no. 1 along with his father i.e. petitioner no. 2 had visited her house and petitioner no. 2 had asked her father to pay Rs. 6 lakhs towards expenses of reception ceremony and had also demanded a car. It is also the case of complainant that she had brought several belongings with her when she had come to the house of petitioners including her gold jewellery but the same had not been returned by the petitioners and rather had been misappropriated by them.

10. It is a settled law that at the stage of framing of charge, it is only to be seen whether a prima facie case exists on the basis of the material on record. In the present case, the complainant has levelled specific allegations against the petitioner for the offences for which the petitioners have been charged with. The complainant has corroborated her version in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. As far as the contentions raised on behalf of petitioners are concerned, the same are all probable defences of the accused/petitioners which can be raised and adjudicated as per law during the course of trial.

11. Thus, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds no reasons to interfere with the impugned order framing charges against the petitioners.