Delhi High Court
Istique & Anr. vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 21 September, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 21st September, 2016
+ CRL.REV.P. 778/2014
ISTIQUE & ANR. ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. A.K. Padhy, Adv.
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP with
Insp. Sarita, PS Seelampur.
Mr. Jai Gopal Garg, Adv. for
R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
1. By the present petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 30th
September, 2014 directing framing of charge against the petitioners Ishtiyak
and Majid for offences punishable under Sections 506(II) read with 120-B
IPC and 366 read with 109 IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are social
activists and respectable people. In the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
the prosecutrix has not levelled any allegations against the petitioners. Even
in her statement to the doctor she made no allegations against the petitioners.
After remaining in the custody of her mother for three days, she gave a
statement before NGO on the basis of which the petitioners were implicated.
It is stated that there is no allegations whatsoever that Ishtiyak or Majid were
parties to the kidnapping or abduction of the prosecutrix or getting her
forcefully married against her Will to the main accused or seducing her to
illicit intercourse or threaten her. The prosecutrix left her house of her own
free will, due to her love affair for the last four years with Abid without any
compulsion. CCTV footage of the camera and the pen drive taken in
possession disproves her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
3. FIR No.232/2014 under Sections 363/366 IPC was registered on the
complaint of mother of the prosecutrix who stated that her daughter aged 17
years was missing since 10 O'clock. On 12th April, 2014 the prosecutrix was
produced in the police station Seelampur by the mother of Abid, the main
accused. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. and she was medically examined. Subsequently on 15 th April, 2014
the prosecutrix levelled allegations of sexual assault and forced marriage.
Thus, her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded which
implicated the petitioners.
4. In the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix has stated
that she developed friendship with one Abid and they exchanged their
numbers. One or two times she went with Abid and roamed around with
him without telling parents. On 8th April, 2014 at the instance and asking of
Abid, she took from her house cash and jewellery and left to meet Abid.
Both of them went around Shalimar Garden. At 1.00 AM in the night they
took a room in Mayur Guest House and there they developed physical
relations. Thereafter they left the place and in the evening they went to
G.T.B. Hospital, ate in the canteen and stayed at the reception of the hospital
itself. On the next day morning they went to EDM Mall and when Abid
switched on his mobile phone, he received a message of one Tyagi that in
case of need, he can call him. Abid called Tyagi who informed that a
complaint had been lodged by the family members of the prosecutrix so they
left the place. On 11th April, 2013 they went to the house of sister of Abid
where Ishtiyak who was president of the area came and threatened her and
made her write a letter in Hindi. He had brought a rough written letter. In
the letter it was stated that the prosecutrix had left the house of her own free
will. Thereafter Abid (uncle) made her writing a letter and post it. Abid's
sister dressed her in a burqa and Abid's mother, sister and brother-in-law
took her to Nizamuddin Dargah and got entered that she was born in the year
1996 whereas her date of birth was of 1997. They got performed Nikah
between Abid and the prosecutrix. Ishtiyak took photographs of the
marriage. The papers of Nikah were signed by Abid's brother-in-law.
Thereafter they went to Abid's house and she handed over cash and gold to
Abid's mother and sister. They were taken to the office of Pradhan where a
camera was fitted and a number of questions were asked from her. From
there Abid's uncle Majid and Ishtiyak Pradhan took her to police station.
5. From the allegations of the prosecutrix against the petitioners under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. the charge framed for offences punishable under Section
506(II) read with 120B and 366 read with 120B IPC cannot be said to be
unwarranted or illegal. The prosecutrix has already stated that she was made
to say certain facts in front of the camera and thus the contents of the CD
relied by the petitioners are irrelevant at this stage.
6. Petition is dismissed.
7. Trial Court record be sent back forthwith.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 /'vkm'
