Delhi High Court: While hearing a criminal revision petition challenging the discharge of persons accused under Section 328 and 376 of the Penal Code 1860 (‘IPC’) by the Trial Court, the Single Judge Bench of Dr. Swarna Kanta Sharma, J, declined to interfere with the order and laid down important directions to safeguard against the misuse of the victim compensation scheme in sexual offence cases by victims who file false allegations and subsequently resile from the same.
Background
The case arose from an FIR registered on 21-1-2023, under Sections 328 and 376 of the IPC, on the complaint of the prosecutrix. She had alleged that accused Toshib alias Paritosh, whom she had met through her husband’s nephew, had lured her on the pretext of arranging employment and had taken her to a flat in Noida, where she had been subjected to gang rape by him and two other accused persons. The prosecutrix had also reiterated this version during her medical examination conducted shortly thereafter.
Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons. However, the Trial Court discharged all the accused, relying primarily on the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’), wherein she had completely resiled from her earlier allegations. Aggrieved, the State preferred the present revision petition.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court began by reiterating the settled principles governing consideration of material at the stage of framing of charge. It emphasised that while the Court is not required to conduct a detailed evaluation of evidence, it must nonetheless determine whether the material on record discloses a strong or grave suspicion against the accused. Where the material itself negates such suspicion, discharge would be justified.
Applying these principles to the facts of the case, the Court noted that although the prosecutrix initially made detailed allegations of gang rape in her complaint and medical history, she subsequently gave a categorical statement under Section 164 of the CrPC, exonerating all the accused persons. In that statement, she had asserted that her physical relationship with accused was consensual and that the other accused persons, who were present along with their respective girlfriends, had not committed any wrongdoing. She had further stated that she did not wish to pursue the complaint.
The Court underscored the evidentiary significance of a statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, which is made before a Magistrate after ensuring voluntariness and absence of coercion. It found no ambiguity, hesitation, or allegation of pressure in the prosecutrix’s statement. Notably, when she appeared before the Trial Court at the stage of arguments on charge, she affirmed that her Section 164 statement correctly reflected the true version of events.
In these circumstances, the Court held that the foundational basis of the prosecution case stood substantially eroded. Proceeding to trial in the absence of any grave suspicion would amount to subjecting the accused to an unwarranted prosecution. The Court therefore found no perversity or illegality in the Trial Court’s decision to discharge the accused and declined to interfere.
Beyond the facts of the case, the Court made significant observations on the misuse of the criminal process in certain sexual offence cases. It noted that false allegations of rape, when subsequently withdrawn without explanation, not only cause irreparable harm to the accused but also undermine public confidence in the justice system and cast doubt on genuine complaints of sexual violence. The Court also stated that,
“Loss of reputation, incarceration, social stigma, and psychological trauma suffered by an accused who is ultimately found to have been falsely implicated may leave scars that remain unhealed for a lifetime, just as the violation of dignity and bodily integrity leaves deep and lasting wounds in genuine cases of sexual assault. Such harm cannot be undone merely by an order of discharge or a few words of sympathy.”
While refraining from directing prosecution of the prosecutrix for false implication, the Court left it open to the State or the accused to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.
The Court also expressed concern over instances where interim compensation granted under victim compensation schemes is not recovered even when allegations are withdrawn or found to be false. After examining the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018, and the Standard Operating Procedures framed thereunder, the Court emphasised the need for effective enforcement of recovery provisions to prevent misuse of public funds.
To ensure transparency and accountability, the Court issued, inter alia, the following directions:
-
Trial courts shall forward relevant orders to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) in cases involving sexual offences where
-
proceedings are quashed on the basis of compromise or
-
where the victim turns hostile, resiles from allegations, or completely exonerates the accused
to enable examination of recovery of compensation.
-
-
In petitions seeking quashing of FIRs or proceedings in sexual offence cases on the basis of settlement, it shall be mandatory to disclose whether any compensation has been received by the victim.
A copy of the judgment was directed to be circulated to all judicial officers in Delhi, the Delhi Judicial Academy, and the DSLSA.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the revision petition.
[The State of GNCT of Delhi v. Toshib alias Paritosh, CRL. REV. P. No. 772 of 2024, decided on 15-12-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP, SI Sumeet Poonia.
For the Respondent: Lokesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate