Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed a revision petition challenging the trial court’s order framing charges under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code and Information Technology Act. The Bench held that a prima facie case had been made out based on the victim’s statements and evidence on record and directed that the prosecutrix be summoned again for re-examination in connection with one of the accused. The petition seeking to quash the charges was accordingly dismissed, and the Court confirmed the continuation of criminal proceedings, stating that a detailed trial was necessary to adjudicate the veracity of the allegations.

According to the prosecution, the events in question took place on September 29, 2018. The complainant (victim) was allegedly invited to a party at a hotel in Naraina, Delhi. She was picked up from a metro station and taken to the hotel in a private car. She was accompanied by another female individual referred to as ‘G’. At the venue, it is alleged that two individuals compelled the complainant to consume alcohol against her will.

Also Read: Section 197 CrPC | Prior Sanction Mandatory Even Where Acts Exceed Authority, If Reasonably Linked to Official Duty: Supreme Court

The complainant later alleged that while under the influence of alcohol, she was sexually assaulted by both individuals, and a video recording of the incident was made without her consent. The complaint further stated that both individuals threatened to make the video public. The complainant filed a formal complaint on October 19, 2018, which led to the registration of an FIR the following day.

It is recorded that one of the accused was declared a proclaimed offender on April 22, 2019, having absconded after the FIR was filed. A chargesheet was filed against the co-accused, and charges were framed accordingly. The complainant was examined, cross-examined, and discharged in that proceeding. Subsequently, the absconding accused was apprehended on July 28, 2022, and a supplementary chargesheet was filed against him.

On June 4, 2024, the trial court framed charges against the second accused under Sections 328, 376D, 354C, 201, and 174A of the IPC, as well as Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act, read with Section 34 IPC.

The defence counsel contended that the charges had been framed without proper application of mind, noting a delay of 20 days between the alleged incident and the filing of the complaint. It was further argued that the alleged sexual encounter was consensual, and that the complainant’s primary grievance pertained to the dissemination of the video, not the act itself.

Additionally, the defence alleged that the complainant's narrative had inconsistencies and contradictions, particularly between her initial complaint and later statements under Section 164 CrPC. It was also pointed out that the other female individual present at the hotel did not corroborate the complainant's account.

The petitioner’s legal team also introduced a financial angle, suggesting that the co-accused had monetary obligations towards the petitioner and had falsely implicated him to evade liability. The trial court’s framing of charges, they argued, had failed to consider the discrepancies in the victim’s statements and the lack of substantial corroborative evidence.

The Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the State, countered that the allegations were grave and that the material on record, including statements and digital evidence, warranted the framing of charges. The APP highlighted that at the stage of charge, courts are only required to consider whether a prima facie case exists, and not to evaluate the sufficiency or reliability of evidence.

The Court recorded that “the allegations against the revisionist, in a nutshell, are that he, along with co-accused... had called the victim... under the pretext of attending a party,” and that she had been “compelled to consume alcohol despite her initial reluctance.” It was further noted that under intoxication, “revisionist... had allegedly established physical relations with her forcibly and had recorded an obscene video involving her and another girl.”

Regarding the circulation of the video, the Court stated: “The victim became aware of the existence of these videos when co-accused... sent them to her via WhatsApp and informed her that... had recorded them.”

Addressing the role of the Court at the stage of charge framing, the judgment stated: “The Courts are not vested with the authority to delve into the probative value of evidence, nor are they permitted to engage in a mini-trial.” Citing Supreme Court precedent, the judgment emphasized: “Only prima facie case is to be seen; whether case is beyond reasonable doubt, is not to be seen at this stage.”

Responding to arguments regarding delay in reporting, the Court observed: “Minor delays in reporting sexual offences are not uncommon and do not, by themselves, discredit the version of the complainant/victim.”

The judgment further noted: “The unauthorized recording and circulation of such content prima facie constitute offences under Sections 66E and 67A of the IT Act.”

As for discrepancies in the victim’s statements, the Court held: “An accused, especially in case of sexual assault, cannot be discharged only on the ground of discrepancies in the FIR and statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.”

With respect to prior testimony given in the trial of the co-accused, the Court stated: “The testimony... pertains to proceedings conducted after the stage of charge and, therefore, cannot be imported into the present proceedings.” It further clarified: “The evaluation of contradictions or inconsistencies in such testimony is a matter to be assessed during the trial through cross-examination.”

The argument of consent was also addressed. The Court remarked: “Friendship, by its very nature, is founded on mutual respect, trust, and personal boundaries. The accused’s alleged actions... constitute a serious violation of the complainant’s dignity and privacy.”

Also Read: S.138 NI Act | Lok Adalat Award in Cheque Bounce Case Executable as Civil Decree: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Court concluded by upholding the trial court’s decision:

“This Court is of the considered opinion that the victim in this case has levelled specific and serious allegations... The victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., coupled with the evidence on record... prima facie establishes a case against the accused.”

It further recorded:

“The fact that the revisionist herein was declared a proclaimed offender and had subsequently disposed of the mobile phone used at the time of the commission of alleged offence further aggravates the concerns surrounding his conduct.”

The Court stated that it found no reason to intervene in the impugned order and accordingly dismissed the revision petition. It further clarified that nothing contained in the judgment should be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Nitin Mehta, Mr. Sarthak Jain, and Mr. Arpit Rawat, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Manoj Pant, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State

Case Title: XXX v State of NCT of Delhi
Neutral Citation: 1893 - Delhi HC - RE State of NCT of Delhi
Case Number: CRL.REV.P. 1195/2024
Bench: Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma

[Read/Download order]