* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 02.04.2019
+ CRL.REV.P. 484/2017
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) ….. Petitioner
AJIT SONI ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Hirein Sharma, Addl. PP for the State with Tej Ram
For the Respondent: Ms. Jasvinder Kaur and Mr. Abhishek Chaudhary, Advs.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. State has filed this revision impugning order dated 07.12.2016
whereby the respondent has been discharged of the offence under Section
376 of the IPC.
2. FIR was registered consequent to the directions being issued under
Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. on a complaint filed by the prosecutrix/respondent.
3. 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
CRL.REV.P 484/2017 Page 1 of 7
4. 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
5. As per the complaint, the respondent had taken money from her and
she even took loan from others to give to the respondent. He had assured to
return the money. However, he did not return the same. He forcefully took
her signatures on some blank papers and forcefully transferred her plot in
his name. Further it is alleged that all her salary was taken by him and he
even took blank cheques from her containing signatures. It is alleged that
he had used the blank cheques and filed a complaint against her under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
6. Trial court, by the impugned order, noticed the contention of the
respondent/accused that he had been falsely implicated and further that
there was substantial delay in lodging the complaint, in as much as, the
alleged forceful act was alleged to have taken place in or around 2006 and
the complaint was lodged for the first time in the year 2013. Further, the
trial court noticed the contention that the complaint was a counter-blast to
the complaint filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act against the prosecutrix and also against her brother who
had allegedly purchased jewellery items on credit and issued cheques.
CRL.REV.P 484/2017 Page 2 of 7
7. The case of the respondent 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.
8. Trial Court, on going through the material collected during
investigation, found that there was no medical evidence to corroborate the
version of the prosecutrix and no complaint had been lodged by the
prosecutrix till 28.01.2013; though she had alleged that she was raped in the
9. Trial Court also noticed that in the complaint she had alleged that
she was raped from the year 2006 till April, 2012 whereas when she was
produced for her medical examination, she contended that she has been
raped from year 2006 to 2010. No specific allegations with regard to the
alleged offence had been mentioned by the prosecutrix.
10. 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
respondent/accused for framing of charge under Section 376 IPC.
Accordingly, by the impugned order respondent was discharged.
11. For the purposes of completeness, the allegations, as contained in the
FIR are extracted hereunder:
1. ***** ***** *****
CRL.REV.P 484/2017 Page 3 of 7
2. That the accused above named Shri Ajeet Soni running
a jewellery shop in the Najafgarh area.
3. That the complainant was from time to time visiting the
shop of the accused with her husband for purchase of
4. That in the year 2005, the husband of the complainant
died and he was working in Indian Army.
5. That at about four years ago, the complainant went to
the shop of the accused for purchase of ear ring and on that
day, the accused came to know about the death of her
6. That during this period, the accused came to contact
with the complainant and developed the friendly relation with
the complainant and from time to time all the complainant in
his shop and when she objected, the accused replied the
complainant that no will tell you anything.
7. That as and when the accused called the complainant
in his shop, they talked with the complainant in a very vulgar
language and the accused also all the times tried to talk about
the children of the complainant.
8. That the complainant has trust the behaviour of the
accused and also more than the gods.
9. That the accused developed the physical relationship
with the complainant and the accused used to rape the
accused in his car because the glass of the car is covered with
black film. The accused regularly with threating the
complainant raped from the year 2006 to till April, 2012.
10. That the accused know that no one remain to look after
the complainant. The complainant told all family history to
11. That during this period, the accused kept all the
relevant papers of the properties of the complainant in his
CRL.REV.P 484/2017 Page 4 of 7
custody. In the year 2011, that the complainant purchased a
scooty and the accused accompanied the complainant and
purchased the scooty in his wife name namely Seema Soni
and after passing of four months, he sold the scooty to
someone else with the pretext that the complainant need a
some money urgently.
12. That the complainant understood that the accused
person tried to mislead the complainant with the false pretext
and misuse her body and property. As and when the
complainant did not turn up after the phone call from the
accused, the accused himself visited the house of the
complainant and the complainant due to fear of her child and
the social stigma did not resisted and hand over her body to
13. That the complainant fulfilled all the demands,
demanded by the accused due to fear of her child and social
14. That the accused taken a signed blank cheques, pass
books and all relevant documents relating to the properties
and taken a signature of the complainant on some blank
15. That the accused filed a complaint under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the complainant
with the using cheque received by accused.
16. That in such a manner the accused has committed
fraud with the complainant by receiving the blank signed
cheques, original documents of properties and blank signed
copy of the stamp papers. The accused also raped the
complainant with false pretext and threating to the
complainant with dire consequences and hence the accused is
liable to be punished in accordance with law.”
12. Perusal of the allegations show that the allegations are very vague
and complainant/prosecutrix has not given any specific details about the
CRL.REV.P 484/2017 Page 5 of 7
alleged offence. There is a bald statement that one day the respondent had
forcefully made relations with her in a car. Thereafter he had continued to
rape her from year 2006 to 2012. The allegations against the respondent as
is evident from the FIR as well as her statement recorded under Section 164
Cr. P.C. are vague and the said allegations have also not been corroborated
by any material on record including the medical report.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. Perusal of the records as well as the statements show that the
CRL.REV.P 484/2017 Page 6 of 7
allegations are completely vague and bereft of any details, further the
material placed on record does not give rise to grave suspicion against the
respondent of having committing the offence under Section 376 of the IPC.
17. In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the impugned order dated
07.12.2016. There is no merit in the petition. The petition is accordingly
18. Order Dasti under signatures of Court Master.
APRIL 02, 2019 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
CRL.REV.P 484/2017 Page 7 of 7