To avoid a cheque bounce case a lady alleged rape against the complainant, High Court did not agree

To avoid a cheque bounce case a lady alleged rape against the complainant, High Court did not agree, read the judgment

16 Apr 2019

April 16, 2019:

Delhi High Court has found a case of rape a counter blast to the cheque bounce case and finding it unreliable, it accepted the discharge of accused from the rape case.

A bench of Justice Sachdeva has passed the judgment in case titled State vs Ajit Soni on 02.04.2019.

The allegations in the FIR are that prosecutrix was known to the respondent/accused. Prosecutrix had kept a gold chain with the respondent/accused who is a jeweller. It is contended that her husband had died in the year 2005 and in 2006 she had gone to the respondent to take back her chain when she informed the respondent that her husband had expired. It is alleged that he stated that he would take care of her and her child. She, however, objected stating that he was married to which respondent is alleged to have stated that he would take care of everything. It is alleged that one day, he took her in his car and forcefully made physical relationship with her. The car was alleged to be a Santro Car having tinted classes. It is alleged that thereafter also he made physical relations with her several times.

The case of the accused was that prosecutrix had taken a loan of Rs. 12.5 lakhs from him and in discharge thereof issued a cheque which had got dishonoured, leading to filing of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. As a counter-blast to the complaints filed by the respondent against the prosecutrix and also against her brother, he was implicated in this false case.

Trial court on perusal of the record was of the view that the material placed on record did not give rise to grave suspicion against the accused for framing of charge under Section 376 IPC. Accordingly, by the impugned order accused was discharged. The State challenged the discharge order before the High Court.

High Court observed “As per the prosecutrix, admittedly there is a prior complaint filed by the respondent against her under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of a cheque issued in favour of the respondent. The prosecutrix has also not been able to render any explanation as to why she did not make a complaint immediately after the offence was committed upon her in the year 2006. Rather the statement given by the prosecutrix indicates that the respondent had assured that he would take care of her and her child. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C., the only averment is that one day in his car he had made forceful relations with her and thereafter also he had forcibly raped her….. As noticed above, there are no specific details provided by the prosecutrix either in her statement given to the police or in the statement given under Section 164 Cr. P.C”.

It then concluded “The finding returned by the trial court that the material placed before the Court does not disclose grave suspicion against the accused for framing of a charge against him for committing the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC, does not appear to be perverse or misplaced”.