The High Court of Delhi was dealing with the writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
Brief Facts:
The mother of the victim filed a missing report of her daughter under Section 363 IPC. The complainant stated that her younger daughter Miss J had left their home stating that she is going to get biscuits. It is stated that, Miss J called her mother that she is in Ghaziabad. The mother approached the Police and the Police recovered Miss J. She stated that one Mr. Sunil Gupta, who their neighbour was responsible for this act committed against the modesty of her daughter. It was found on a comparative reading of the CDRs that the accused Mr. Sunil Gupta was present in Delhi and was on duty in his office and his location was verified as per the CDR and independently verified from the superior of the accused at his workplace. It was found during investigation that the victims were not actually in Delhi and were in Ludhiana. It was found that Miss J and her sister Miss C were stating in a hotel in Ludhiana and were accompanied by their two friends. The CCTV footage of the hotel where the victims CDR was traced to was checked and their presence was seen in the camera and their names were recorded in the guest register and entries were made by the victims giving fictitious names. Miss J had stated that Sunil Gupta and his wife forcibly dragged her into a four-wheeler and took her to desolate place. It further states that she was taken to an unknown dark room where a boy unknown to her raped her and then dropped to an unknown place in the middle of agricultural field. She stated that she requested for help from bystander to make a phone call she called her mother and stated what had transpired.
Respondent’s Contention:
The learned ASC states that the present case is nothing but a dispute between the family of the victims and alleged accused Sunil Gupta and that a plethora of cross-cases have been registered by both the parties. The learned ASC submits that the petitioners were seen leaving their home in the CCTV footage installed in the locality and the CDRs of the petitioners were analysed and it was found that they were in continuous touch with the complainant and her husband i.e., their parents. It is contended by the learned ASC that the accused Sunil Gupta was on duty at his workplace and letter of the company was issued to justify this fact. He also contends that the petitioner was not actually kidnapped and on their free will went to Ludhiana, accompanied by two of their male friends. He further contends that the hotel where the victims were at the time of alleged incident was contacted and the investigating authority checked the CCTV footage, guests' entry register, the victims registered their fictitious names and their two male friends who accompanied them registered their correct names. He states that there was activity on their social media profiles and they uploaded photographs with their male friends showing their current location to be in Ludhiana.
Petitioner’s Contention:
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Sub-Inspector in charge of the investigation of this case came to the victim's house and threatened the victim and her parents stating that they have filed a baseless case and that they should withdraw this case and this incident recurred multiple times. It is stated that the petitioner's lawyer sent representation to several authorities complaining about the conduct of the S.I. for not conducting a fair investigation given the severity of the allegations involving two minors.
HC’s observations:
After hearing the submissions made by both parties the HC observed that the genesis of this case levels extraordinarily serious and concerning allegations. The offences alleged are of Section 363, 376 IPC read with Section 6 and 8 of the POCSO Act. The HC stated that “This Court, in this observation, is only confining itself to the materials which have been placed on record and refrains from expressing its opinion on the merits of this case.”
The Court after a careful perusal of the material on record found that there have been numerous FIRs and cross-FIRs between the family of the victims and accused Sunil Gupta and his family. The Court found that both families have been inimical towards each other. The Court stated that “Without conclusively ascertaining and only for purpose of the present proceedings, there appears to be a contradiction between the statements of the victim and the material on record. From the material placed before this Court, it is seen that accused Sunil Gupta was present in Delhi. It is noted that photographs from the CCTV footage show that the victims were at Hotel in Ludhiana with some boys. Further, it appears that Miss J and her sister uploaded photographs to their social media handles with their male friends, which belies the case of abduction and rape.”
HC held:
After perusing the material placed on record and a holistic understanding of the sequence of events the Court found that investigation has been done in a fair manner. The Court found that the family of the petitioners is using the present proceedings as an apparatus for attempting to suborn and exert pressure on the police to investigate and deal with other cases in a particular manner. Also, the Court stated that it is always open for the Trial Court to exercise the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. at any stage of the Trial in case some material surfaces against any other person.
After evaluating the material records and submissions made by both the parties the HC held that “It is the duty of the State to provide protection to every citizen of the country but at the same time this Court has to ensure that frivolous petitions, which are filed only to interfere with the investigation and to arm twist the Police officers, ought not to be entertained.”
The HC disposed of writ petition.
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad
Case Title: Miss J Through Her Mother & Anr v. Commissioner Of Police & Ors
Case Details: W.P.(CRL) 1079/2021 & CRL.M.A. 8751/2021
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
