HC refuses to quash rape charge against man

Image
Press Trust of India New Delhi
Last Updated : Jan 20 2017 | 8:49 PM IST
Delhi High Court today refused to quash rape charges against a man, observing that it cannot be inferred that the "somersault" by the woman was "genuine".
"There are specific and clear allegations against the petitioner in the statement of the complainant on the basis of which the FIR in question was lodged. She reiterated her version in her 164 (Recording of confessions and statements) CrPC statement before Magistrate," Justice S P Garg said.
Weeks after the woman had lodged an FIR against a person accusing him of rape, the prosecutrix sent a letter to the SHO denying allegations levelled by her in her earlier complaint. This statement was recorded by the police under 161 CrPC.
The accused then moved the high court seeking quashing of the complaint on the ground that the prosecutrix had retracted her earlier statement and continuance of criminal proceedings against him would be an abuse of the process.
Dismissing the man's plea, the judge observed that, "since there are specific allegations against him in the chargesheet filed against him, I find no sufficient and valid ground to quash the FIR/chargesheet and other proceedings emanating from it".
"When the petitioner was declined anticipatory bail by the court below and by this court, seemingly attempts were made by him to prevail upon the prosecutrix to resile from her previous statement," it added.
The court observed "it is to be ascertained during trial as to how and in what circumstances, the prosecutrix denied her earlier version or whether it was due to some threats or pressure. It cannot be inferred at this stage that the somersault by the prosecutrix is a genuine one".
The court noted in its 7-page order that there was every chance of the woman being influenced by the man for a settlement or compromise.
"It would not be safe to consider the subsequent changed version to quash the FIR/Chargesheet particularly when all attempts of the petitioner to seek anticipatory bail proved futile," the court said.

Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Jan 20 2017 | 8:49 PM IST

Next Story