Delhi HC refuses to quash FIR against man in molestation case
Sep 03, 2022
New Delhi [India], September 3 : The Delhi High Court has refused to quash the FIR and chargesheet against a man on molestation allegations.
The accused who was earlier working with the United Nations had to leave his job after the allegations levelled against him were informed to his employer by the complainant.
However, the court directed that the petitioner would be entitled to damages including loss of salary from the complainant if get acquitted by the court.
Justice Jasmeet Singh, while dismissing the petition, said, "I have perused the FIR, which disclosed a cognizable offence. However, the contradictions as stated need to be explained in the trial but can not be short-circuited at this stage."
Therefore, the petition for quashing the FIR and the chargesheet is dismissed with a direction to the trial court to expeditiously dispose of the matter, said in the judgement of August 31.
While observing that a note of caution needs to be sounded in this case, the court said that "It is hereby observed and directed, in case the trial court acquits the petitioner and the allegations levied against him are found to be baseless, the petitioner will be entitled to damages including loss of salary from the complainant."
The court said that the above direction is further necessitated as on September 3, 2021, this court had directed both the parties not to precipitate the issue any further as they were in mediation. Despite the same, the complainant seems to have written to the employer of the petitioner.
It was alleged by the complainant that the boyfriend of her sister-in-law made sexual advances toward her on December 13, 2019, at around 9 PM at her matrimonial home in Malviya Nagar.
The woman had also levelled allegations against her in-laws of assaulting her after the said incident. The FIR has named the father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law in this case.
Advocate Ranjit Kumar argued before the court that there was a delay in the registration of the FIR.
It was also argued that the complainant's husband on December 7, 2020, had filed a divorce petition.
This FIR was a counterblast to the said petition that the FIR for the alleged incident of 2019 was lodged in October 2020.
It was further argued that on the day of the incident, the accused went shopping with his friend. If he was in Lajpat Nagar around 8.40 PM, he could not reach the place happening in a South Delhi colony around 9 PM.
The court observed, "Even though these aspects poke holes in the case of the complainant, this has to be adjudicated before the trial court. The complainant needs to be given an opportunity to explain the delay and also the contradictions in the complaint and the FIR. It is a sensitive matter requiring that the side of the complainant is heard."
The court also said that the conduct of the complainant and the contradictions need to be explained before the trial court. The trial court is directed to decide the matter expeditiously.
