HC: Delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding the same

  

On 17^th August, a bench of Delhi High Court consisting of Justice Yogesh Khanna held that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding the same. If the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the Court, the prosecution case cannot be disbelieved.

Facts of the case:

The petition was filed under Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code for anticipatory bail to petitioner in case FIR No.100/2021 registered under Section 376/328/506 IPC. The allegations are that the petitioner who is an officer in Indian Navy on the pretext of marriage had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. After which, , he went to Kolkata for training with a promise to return after 2-3 months, but did not return, nor had any talks.

Contention of the Prosecutrix:

Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, learned counsel for the prosecutrix contended the following:

 

1. It was contended that from December 2019 to January 2020, the petitioner had been calling the prosecutrix at Kota House, having physical relations on promise of marriage.
2. It was submitted that in December 2019, the petitioner gave cold drink mixed with sedatives to prosecutrix which she consumed and felt dizzy. After 10-15 minutes, she became unconscious and when she woke up next morning she realised she was raped.
3. The prosecutrix after learning about the petitioners marriage was under immense depression, trauma because of the misdeeds of the petitioner and allegedly his mother.

Contention of the petitioner:

Ms.Geeta Luthra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the following:

1. The petitioner denied any physical relations with the prosecutrix and submitted that the prosecutrix started calling and insisting him to marry her, but the petitioner did not echo her sentiment.
2. The petitioner also submitted that the prosecutrix had been making repeated demands to transfer money to her bank account, but he showed his inability.
3. It is argued by the petitioner both of them are empowered person and that she never filed any FIR between December 2019 to January 2020, thus, there is a considerable delay.

Observation and judgement of the court:

The Hon’ble bench of the court made the following observation:

 

1. If one looks at the facts, the delay need to be counted from 15.06.2021 and not from December, 2019. It starts from the day the prosecutrix found the petitioner had married elsewhere without informing her.
2. It is settled law the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding the same if the delay is explained.
3. Though, the petitioner stated he never contacted the prosecutrix after March, 2021, but she has filed her whatsapp chats and it appears till 18.05.2021 both were in contact with each other.

Thus, the court held that the defence taken by the petitioner they were only friends and he never made any promise to her or she was obsessed or she is here to extract money from him, appears to be factually incorrect. The court further held that the allegation she is doing all this for money rather inflicts more pain to her injury.

In the light of the above the bench denied interfering with the order dated 07.07.2021 of the learned Session’s Judge in declining anticipatory bail to the petitioner and disposed of the petition.

Read Judgment;