Delhi High Court
Madhvi Arora vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr. on 22 September, 2015
Author: S. P. Garg
$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2015
+ CRL.M.C.272/2015
MADHVI ARORA ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Ritesh Bahri, Advocate with
Mr.Randeep K.Rehan, Mr.Dhan
Mohan & Mr.Ashish Gaur,
Advocates.
Versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Amit Ahlawat, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)
1. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred
by the petitioner for quashing of order dated 22.09.2014 of learned Addl.
Sessions Judge in Crl.Rev.No.28/14 by which order dated 16.03.2013 of
Learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing the complaint under Section
200 Cr.P.C. was upheld.
2. I have the learned counsel for the petitioner and have
examined the file. The petitioner had filed complaint case under Section
200 Cr.P.C. on 14.07.2006 to initiate proceedings under Sections
376/506/452 IPC against respondent No.2. It was averred in the complaint
that in September, 2002 when petitioner's husband and brother-in-law
were lodged in Tihar Jail, the respondent No.2 who lived at 162, village
Dheerpur, Delhi and was posted as Head Constable in Delhi Police
approached her to assist their release. He demanded physical favour from
her. However, on her raising alarm, the respondent No.2 fled the spot.
After two or three days at around 01.00 a.m., the respondent No.2 again
came at her house on the pretext to deliver urgent message. After gaining
entry in the house, respondent No.2 criminally intimidated her and
committed rape upon her. The complainant further alleged that subsequent
to release of her husband from jail, the respondent No.2 continued to
commit rape upon her against her wishes after black-mailing her. She
apprised her husband about the sexual assault and when he confronted the
respondent No.2, he was also threatened. The petitioner was forced to
shift her residence to 207, Nirankari Colony, Delhi, in May, 2006.
However, the respondent No.2 continued to follow her there also. On
07.07.2006, the respondent No.2 made a telephone call from his mobile
No.9873432422 to the mobile of her tenant - Deepak at 9891153100 and
insisted her to meet him on that night. She brought it to the notice of her
husband, brother-in-law and they all approached PS Mukherjee Nagar at
around 11.00 to 11.30 pm. The police, however, did not take any action.
Hence the complaint.
3. The complainant examined herself as CW-2 besides
examining CW-1 (DeePak Arora), CW-3 (Bharat Bhushan), CW-4
(Jayanti Mala) and CW-5 (Rajeev) in her pre-summoning evidence. After
hearing the contentions and on appreciation of the evidence, the Trial
Court dismissed the complaint case. The petitioner challenged it by filing
Crl.Rev.No.28/14 which was dismissed on 22.09.2014. Aggrieved by the
said orders, the instant petition has been filed.
4. The story put forward by the prosecutrix in her complaint is
unbelievable and improbable. The petitioner was conspicuously evasive to
disclose if both the parties were acquainted with each other since long and
they lived as neighbours in the same village. The occurrence took place in
September, 2006. Allegedly, the prosecutrix was ravished on number of
occasions thereafter, however, at no stage, the prosecutrix or her family
members bothered to lodge any complaint with the police. No Panchayat
was ever organised. No complaint at 100 was made. In the pre-
summoning evidence, the complainant did not examine any independent
public witness to prove that she was sexually assaulted by the respondent
No.2. Inordinate delay of six years in lodging the complaint has remained
unexplained. The petitioner and her family members who were quick to
lodge various comprehensive written complaints to different authorities on
08.07.2006 were not expected to remain mum for long six years and to
suffer the atrocities of the respondent No.2. in silence. Once the
prosecutrix had become suspicious of the conduct and the attitude of the
respondent No.2 on the day in September, 2006 when he had demanded
physical favour from her, she had no occasion to permit his entry inside
her house at odd hours after a few days. Nothing has come on record to
show if the prosecutrix resisted the sexual assault of the respondent No.2
or suffered any injury on her body. She did not get herself medically
examined. It is unbelievable that the respondent No.2 would dare to enter
inside the house of the petitioner at 11.00 to 11.30 p.m. to commit rape
when her children were present in the house. No alarm was raised by the
prosecutrix even after the departure of the respondent No.2 from the
scene.
5. It is apt to note that on the complaint lodged by the
prosecutrix, a detailed enquiry was conducted by Insp.Shyama Pant, Addl.
SHO PS Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi. She examined number of independent
public witnesses in the said enquiry and came to the conclusion that the
complaint was motivated and no such incident as alleged had taken place.
Petitioner's husband and other family members were involved in number
of criminal cases. The enquiry officer further found that there was money
transaction between the parties and when a complaint was lodged vide
Daily Diary (DD) No. 75B at PS Mukherjee Nagar by the respondent
No.2 regarding the presence of some ante-social elements at his residence,
the instant complaint case was filed.
6. Allegations levelled by the petitioner are vague and
uncertain. No specific dates have been mentioned when the respondent
No.2 committed rape upon her. The Courts below have dealt with all the
relevant contentions minutely and have given cogent reasons not to
entertain the complaint case of the petitioner. I find no illegality or
material irregularity in the impugned orders to intervene.
7. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 22, 2015 / tr
