Delhi High Court: While disposing the two petitions the court has imposed a fine of Rs 40,000 on the petitioner who is a woman, for “wasting the court’s time” by filing two pleas, one for challenging bail granted to three men, whom she had accused of rape and molestation and second for requesting reinvestigation in the same matter. The Court also quashed the charges framed under Section 354 IPC against two of the men, on the grounds that the complaint filed by the “victim” did not disclose the date or time of the alleged incident.
In the first petition, the woman challenged the anticipatory bail granted to the man who was her live-in partner. She had complained against him, after finding out that he was already married and had children. She claimed that she had entered into the relationship in 2009 and had physical relationship with him, as the man had promised to marry her. The prosecutrix also alleged charges of molestation against two other men, who were involved in the business run by her. She submitted that the bail had been granted on a misconception of fact and was wholly based on the vigilance report which was alleged to suffer from infirmity also forming the basis of the contention raised in the second petition where in she prayed for re-investigation in the FIR. She submitted that the investigation had not been carried out fairly. It was contended that this report should not have been considered for the purpose of grant of bail or investigation, as the investigating officer, through which the investigations had been carried out, was no longer vested with inquiry. The other two men accused of molestation in the third petition, prayed for quashing of charges against them, as they submitted that the complainant had business dealings with them and had lodged a false complaint against them in order to extort money.
The single judge bench comprising of Indermeet Kaur, J noted that the plea for reinvestigation on the grounds that “investigation has not been carried out fairly”, was an “abuse of the process of the court”. The Court held that the investigation in this background suffers from no infirmity. This is clearly not a case where the petitioner has suffered prejudice, leave alone grave prejudice for which she is seeking reinvestigation. Quashing the charges in the third petition the court observed that, “On general allegations, charges cannot be framed. Criminal jurisprudence is firm.” Sapna Gautam v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 12327, decided on 22-09-2015