HC dismisses Tejpal's plea for quashing of rape, other charges

In a setback to Tehelka's former editor-in-chief Tarun Tejpal, the Bombay High Court today dismissed his petition seeking quashing of rape and other charges levelled against him by a former woman colleague.
Turning down the plea, Justice Nutan Sardessai of the Goa bench of the high court observed that no case whatsoever is made out for interference in the decision of the trial court to frame charges against Tejpal, who has been accused of raping the woman during an event in Goa in 2013.
Tejpal had moved a petition before the HC against the framing of charges under various sections, including those related to rape, against him by the District and Sessions Court at Mapusa.

The court had framed charges against Tejpal under IPC sections 354-A (sexual harassment), 376 (rape) and 376(2)(k) (rape of a woman by a person being in the position of control or dominance over the woman), and began the trial last month.
The crime branch later added to the case IPC sections 341 (wrongful restraint) and 342 (wrongful confinement), 376 (2)(f) (person in the position of trust or authority over women, committing rape of such women), 376 C (sexual intercourse by person in authority) and 354 (assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty)
"In view thereof, no case whatsoever is made out for interference therewith and hence, the revision petition is dismissed," Justice Sardessai said in the 27-page order.

Justice Sardessai had reserved the order on Tejpal's plea on December 12 after hearing the arguments made by his lawyer Aman Lekhi and special public prosecutor Saresh Lotlikar.

Lekhi had then presented before the HC CCTV footage of the area outside the lift of a five-star hotel, where he is alleged to have sexually assaulted the woman.
Lotlikar had contended that the charges against Tejpal should not be dismissed without trial.
"Findings of the learned Judge do not warrant any interference in revision on the premise that the order is either incorrect, illegal or lacking in propriety as to exercise the powers vested in this court. There was sufficient material on record to frame charge against the accused," the order said.

Referring to the argument made by Tejpal's lawyer that there was an inconsistency in the version of victim and other witnesses, Justice Sardessai said, "It was not appropriate to do so at the stage of framing of charges against him.
"On a proper appreciation of the material at large, the findings rendered by the learned judge and the various judgements on the point, the impugned order cannot be attacked on the ground of illegality, correctness or perversity," it said.
The alleged rape occurred inside the lift of a five-star hotel near Panaji during ThinkFest 2013 held on November 8-10.
Tejpal's plea for anticipatory bail was rejected on November 30, 2013 following which he was arrested.

Hewas lodged in the Sada sub-jail at Vasco and the crime branch charge-sheeted him on February 17, 2014 for rape, sexual harassment and outraging the modesty of the victim.
On May 19, 2014 the Supreme Court granted Tejpal interim bail for three weeks to attend the final rites of his mother. The interim bail was later extended to six weeks.
On July 1, 2014 the apex court granted him bail.
Earlier, on June 16, 2017 the trial court at Mapusa heard the arguments in-camera before framing the charges.
On September 7, the district court in Mapusa refused to drop the charges against Tejpal, following which he moved the high court bench here.

Tejpal had sought a stay on the framing of charges against him till the time the high court decided his plea on dropping the charges.
On September 26, the high court refused to stay the framing of charges against him, and issued a notice to the Goa government seeking its response to his plea.
On December 12, the high court had reserved its order on his petition seeking the quashing of rape and other charges against him, without specifying the date.
At the last hearing, Lekhi argued that the charges were without considering the material evidence on record, which he claimed, "shows that the prosecutrix was not restrained, confined or her modesty was outraged by the applicant (Tejpal)".

He said after the alleged incident, she was with Tejpal in the same lift for the second time the next day without showing any sign of distress.
The lawyer also claimed that the investigating officer had failed to examine several crucial witnesses named by the prosecutrix in her statement.
The investigating officer had also withheld the CCTV footage from the applicant, who got it following a Supreme Court order, Lekhi said.