Read Time: 08 minutes
A vigilance inquiry was ordered by Delhi High Court to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, to ascertain as to why an FIR alleging rape and sexual assault was not registered and the matter was allowed to be laid to rest on the basis of a compromise, when the complaint established commission of a cognizable offence.
During the course of hearing, the single bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad noted that,
“Non-registration of an FIR in the event that the commission of a cognizable offence is disclosed goes against the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2008).”
Furthermore, the bench said that as per State of M.P. v. Madanlal, (2015) it has been time and again held by the Supreme Court that cases involving the offence of rape cannot be settled on the basis of a compromise.
The bench was hearing a plea filed by the petitioner one Rajesh Suri seeking anticipatory bail in an FIR registered under S. 376 and 328 of IPC. While the vigilance inquiry was ordered in a different FIR registered at Kapasehra police station, the petition related to another FIR registered at Moti Nagar Police Station, however, both FIRs were registered by the same prosecutrix.
The Court directed the vigilance inquiry to be conducted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police into:
The prosecutrix stated that the Petitioner, whom met through social media, brought alcohol to her house and emotionally blackmailed her into drinking it as a result of which she felt giddy. It was stated that the Petitioner then took advantage of the prosecutrix's vulnerable condition and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her.
After chargesheet was filed, the MM issued Non-Bailable Warrants (NBW) against the Petitioner for not appearing before the Court, thereby rejecting his exemption request.
During the course of hearing, the Petitioner counsel argued that, “the instant matter is a classic case of honeytrap and that the prosecutrix and her husband have been previously involved in a similar case.”
He further informed that, “one Manish Tanwar had also been similarly trapped in this manner by the prosecutrix and her husband who only sought to extort money from their victims by lodging false complaints of sexual assault.”
He argued that in that matter, “a hand-written complaint of rape against Manish Tanwar was given to the police in Kapashera police station on 10.07.2020, but no FIR was lodged.”
"Furthermore, a perusal of the record indicates that the medical examination of the prosecutrix/Complainant in relation to FIR No. 668/2020 was conducted before the registration of the FIR but the MLC was conducted on the basis of DD Entry bearing No.4A. This raises the suspicion that the instant FIR had not been registered at the time it was alleged to have been registered. This adds weight to the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that there has been possible manipulation of the instant FIR and the Police was attempting to settle the case," the bench stated.
The bench also noted that, the Supreme Court has previously observed that if an accused has not been arrested during investigation and has cooperated throughout in the investigation, including appearing before the investigating officer whenever called, then certain guidelines must be adhered to while considering the grant of bail.
The bench finally directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Vigilance, Delhi Police, to submit a report within a period of two months.
Cause Title: Rajesh Suri vs State
Please Login or Register
