RENU VIJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 23 rd April, 2004, Complainant lodged a complaint with the DCP alleging that she had joined the Company Raja Construction' owned by one Vinod Kumar Vij in March, 1988. She worked there as an Accountant and Interior Designer and was later transferred to its Kirti Nagar office. The Petitioner Vinod Kumar Vij called her to his house and raped her. A few days thereafter, on the pretext of going to the site, he took her to his house at Faridabad where he gave her liquor mixed cold-drink and with the help of his relative, later identified as Rajender Singh Sachdeva videographed her in a nude position and thereafter blackmailed her and on the threat of killing her continued to have sexual intercourse with her a number of times. In 1991, she was married to one Surjeet when Vinod Kumar Vij was in London. When he came back, he showed those films to her husband and in laws due to which her marriage broke down. He threatened her not to go anywhere. By assuring her of promotion and of keeping her as his wife, he kept on sexually assaulting her without her consent till January, 2003. When she protested, Vinod Kumar Vij threatened her of her life and in 1996, he even tried to kill her. He took her to Faridabad and locked her in a room for 24 hours and threatened her that he would kill her in this manner. By threatening her of her life, Vinod Kumar started sending the complainant for sexual relations without her consent to his clients/bank managers and others. When she talked about all this to his wife namely Renu Vij, both the husband and wife threatened to kill her. She states that because of the fear of threats and for maintaining respect of her family, she did not make any complaint to the police. However, now Vinod Kumar Vij has expelled her from the job and has not even paid her salary for the last three years, she has elderly parents to support and thus legal action be taken against them. On the basis of the complaint, FIR was registered on 14 th May, 2004 under Sections 376/506/342/120B/34 IPC. On a charge-sheet being filed, the Petitioner Renu Vij herein was charged for the offences under Sections 120B and 506 (Part II) read with 120B IPC and Petitioner Vinod Kumar Vij for offences under Sections 376/506/340/342/34 read with 120B IPC, which are the orders impugned in the present petitions.

(2.) Rajender Singh Sachdeva who was charged for offence punishable under Section 120B IPC also filed a revision petition challenging the impugned order. This Court vide its judgment dated 8 th October, 2007 set aside the charge under Section 120B IPC framed against Rajender Singh Sachdeva. This Court discharged Rajender Singh Sachdeva primarily for the reason that the FIR neither mentioned his name nor described him, moreover, admittedly the video film was not recovered and the statement of Surjeet Singh did not support or give credence to the complainant's version.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Petitioners contends that evidence against the Petitioner is same as against Rajender Singh Sachdeva, his brother-in-law and in view of the order of discharge passed by this Court in his case, the Petitioner is also entitled to be discharged of the offences charged by the learned trial court and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is stated that prior to this complaint of 23 rd April, 2004, the Petitioner had earlier filed a complaint dated 2 nd September, 2003 with SHO, P.S. Kirti Nagar and the only allegation in the said complaint was with regard to the non-payment of her dues. The present complaint was a counterblast to the complaint to the SHO, Dev Nagar on 18 th April, 2004 when the Complainant came in an abbreviated condition and broke the window panes of the car of the Petitioner. No video film have been recovered during the investigation, thus showing false implication of the Petitioner. There is a delay of 16 years in lodging the complaint. Moreover, the fear, if any, would have gone when her marriage broke down in the year 1991 and thus her continuing the relations with the Petitioner thereafter, shows that she was a consenting party.