W.P.(CRL)/726/2020 of SANJEEV KUMAR Vs STATE & ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(CRL) 726/2020

SANJEEV KUMAR

..... Petitioner

Through:Mr Vikas Arora, Advocate.

versus

STATE & ANR

..... RespondentsThrough:Ms Nandita Rao, ASC (Crl.) for Statewith W/SI Sunita, PS H. Vihar.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUO R R%16.03.2020

CRL.M.A. 5524/2020

1.Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(CRL) 726/2020 & CRL.MA. 5525/2020

2.The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, challenging theorder dated 01.10.2019 passed by the learned ASJ, to the extent that certainremarks have made against the petitioner and the police officials.Thepetitioner prays that the said remarks be expunged and the directions issuedby the court to initiate action against the petitioner and other police officers,be set aside.

3.A complaint was made by one Ms ‘J’ (name withheld). She statedthat she had been raped by one Pankaj. Although it was claimed that thephysical relationships established by them were consensual, nonetheless, J

claimed that the same amounts to rape as her consent was vitiated as havingbeen induced by false promise of marriage.

4.‘J’ stated that her husband had left her and she was acquainted withthe accused. She stated that the accused had also on prior occasions teasedher. She stated that on one particular day, the accused forcibly made her siton his motorcycle and took her to hotel where he established physicalrelationship with her. She stated that he had done so on several occasions onthe promise of marriage. She also claimed that the accused had threatenedto kill her and her brother.

5.Her statement was also recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC,where she stated that on 02.07.2016, the accused had taken her to hotel andhe had given her water. Thereafter, she lost her senses (apne hosh hawashmein nahi thi) and she subsequently found that her clothes had beenremoved.Thereafter, she claims that the accused had shown her somepapers and informed her that he had raped her. He stated that if she toldanybody or informed anyone about it, he would kill her brother. She furtherstated that, thereafter, he had established physical relationship with her(raped her) on several occasions.

6.It is at once apparent that there were material consistencies/significantimprovements between her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC and theFIR. Nonetheless, the chargesheet was filed.

7.The trial court found that the chargesheet/report filed under Section173 of the CrPC was vague and did not give any result of the investigation.Apart from the fact that no investigation seems to have been undertaken, thechargesheet also referred to civil case filed by the prosecutrix (Ms J)

against the accused and his family members, where she had alleged that shehad been forcibly removed from his house.

8.Consideringthatthechargesheetwasvague,theCourtalsosummoned the concerned DCP and senior police officials be present in courton 30.03.2019. The said matter was considered on 30.03.2019 and on thatdate statement was made on behalf of the Investigating Officer/policeofficials that supplementary chargesheet would be filed in due course.They requested the court to give them sufficient time in this regard.Accordingly, the matter was then deferred.

9.Subsequently, supplementary chargesheet was filed, inter alia,stating that the charges against the accused are not sustainable as theprosecutrix was married to the accused.

10.It is in this context, the Court noted that all relevant facts were wellwithin the knowledge of the IO/SHO. First of all, the FIR itself indicatedthat the prosecutrix was married and, therefore, the allegations that she wasinduced to establish physical relationship on false promise of marriagewould not be sustainable. Apart from that fact, it was also on record that theprosecutrix had filed case against the accused and his family membersalleging that she had been forcibly removed from his house. On one hand,the prosecutrix claimed that she was married to the accused and on the otherhand, had lodged FIR claiming that she was raped. In view of the above,coupled with the fact that there were material inconsistencies in herstatement under Section 164 of the CrPC, the trial court found that theinvestigation conducted was very shabby.

11.It is obvious that the concerned police officials had not investigated

the complaint properly. It also appears that the report submitted was notimpartial. In this view, the trial court had directed that disciplinaryproceedings be initiated against the officials.

12.This Court does not find the impugned order to be arbitrary orunreasonable and thus finds no reason to interfere with the same.

13.It is expected that the authorities shall conduct the disciplinaryinquiry/proceedings in an impartial manner. Whilst the concerned authoritieswill consider the observations made by the Court, it is clarified that the sameare not binding and the concerned authorities shall decide the matterindependently and uninfluenced by the observations made by the Courts.

14.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the ASJhas also called for periodic action taken report, which may not besustainable. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner are disciplinaryproceedings and that is an internal matter of the department. It is accordinglyclarified that, the action taken report sought by the Court is to ensure that theorders passed by the Court, are complied with and not to monitor thedisciplinary proceedings.

15.The petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. The pendingapplication is also disposed of.

16.Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

MARCH 16, 2020MK

VIBHU BAKHRU, J