$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DATE OF DECISION: 3rd DECEMBER, 2013
BAIL APPLN. 2117/2013
DILIP NIGAM ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Rajiv K. Garg, Advocate.
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State.
Mr. R.C. Pathak, Advocate for R-2/
complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA
JUDGMENT
: SUNITA GUPTA, J.
Crl. M.A. 17114/2013 (for exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.
BAIL APPLN. 2117/2013
1. This is an application under Section 438 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 228/2013 registered at Police Station Roop Nagar under Sections 354A/506 IPC.
2. The FIR was registered on the complaint of prosecutrix Bail.Appln.2117/2013 Page 1 of 5 wherein it has been alleged that she had worked as a part time data entry operator and accountant in the year 2009 with Dilip Nigam. In May, 2012 Dilip Nigam approached her mother at her house in Kamla Nagar and urged for appointing her on regular job. At that time complainant used to work in call centre and part time with Dilip Nigam, but he managed to appoint her as full time job by offering her residential accommodation. On 20th September, 2013 he took her to Jammu pretending to go to Manesar, Haryana, for a meeting with a client where he took her in a hotel room and tried to induce her to make physical relations with him. He put off his clothes and laid her on the bed and tried to remove her clothes but somehow she successfully averted the situation. When she opposed his act, then he took her photographs and threatened her to upload the same on internet. She further alleged that Dilip Nigam continued his bad eye on her at his office at Shalimar Bagh where the complainant also used to reside with her family despite the promise not to repeat such activities. She shifted from Shalimar Bagh to Kamla Nagar but he followed her and used to threaten her to indulge her in false case and started sending notice through advocate with intention to harass. He also sent messages on her mobile phone.
3. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that all the allegations made by the complainant are false. The complainant Bail.Appln.2117/2013 Page 2 of 5 herself approached him for maintaining his accounts on part time basis from her home and thereafter joined him at a monthly salary of Rs.6,000/- as part time accountant. At her request, the petitioner arranged for a flat at Shalimar Bagh where he also started running his business. A license agreement was executed. Before shifting his office, the applicant wanted to go to Vaishno Devi. Complainant insisted to go with him and she gave her PAN card. Her mother and brother were very well aware of the fact that she was going with him to Vaishno Devi. Nothing as alleged has happened there. The work of complainant was highly unsatisfactory. On 20th December, 2012 when the petitioner was on business tour to Rajasthan for two weeks, complainant vacated the premises and also took entire belongings of the petitioner. Petitioner demanded his dues and then initiated legal proceedings for recovery of his belongings or in the alternative seeking damages as per license agreement and filed a claim petition against the complainant and recovery suit. As a counter blast, the present FIR was registered on false allegations. Although, the incident is alleged to have taken place in September, 2012, but no FIR was lodged till the petitioner resorted to legal proceedings. The petitioner is ready to join investigation. It was urged before learned Trial Court during the hearing of the anticipatory bail application that the mobile phone is required to be recovered, as such, during the Bail.Appln.2117/2013 Page 3 of 5 hearing of this application the same was handed over to the Investigating Officer of the case. It was submitted that petitioner is ready to join investigation, as such, he be released on bail.
4. The application is opposed by learned APP for the State as well as by learned counsel for the complainant who submitted that the allegations made in the complaint are very serious in nature. The same were corroborated by the complainant in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It was further submitted that petitioner forged the signatures of the complainant in the alleged licence agreement and filed a claim petition for initiating arbitration proceedings. The complainant has moved an application under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for dismissal of the claim petition for grant of valid arbitration agreement. The Investigating Officer has also placed on record copies of the SMS sent by the petitioner to the complainant during the period of 20th December, 2012 to 28th December, 2012. The accused has not joined investigation which is at initial stage, as such, he is not entitled to the relief.
5. A perusal of the complaint lodged by the prosecutrix goes to show that the same is a very detailed one and allegations have been made as to how the petitioner tried to make physical relation with him, took her photographs and threatened to upload the same on Bail.Appln.2117/2013 Page 4 of 5 internet and thereafter also threatened her to indulge in false cases. Although, it is true that the petitioner initiated arbitration proceedings and filed a suit for recovery and thereafter, the complaint was lodged by the prosecutrix, but at this stage it cannot be said that the complaint was lodged as a counter blast of the proceedings initiated by the petitioner, inasmuch as, the extracts of the SMS placed on record by the Investigating Officer of the case tells a different story.
6. As such, keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations which alleges harassment to the complainant by the petitioner during the course of her employment and even thereafter, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
The application is accordingly dismissed.
SUNITA GUPTA, J DECEMBER 03, 2013 AK Bail.Appln.2117/2013 Page 5 of 5