Delhi High Court
Dilip Nigam vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 3 December, 2013
Author: Sunita Gupta
$~
* 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
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
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
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
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
