TUSHAR MITTAL Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned petitions have been filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner seeking setting aside of the common order dtd. 4/11/2019, whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-02, District East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi has disposed of revision petitions filed by the State and the complainant/respondent No. 2. Both the revision petitions were filed against the order dtd. 10/4/2019 passed by the learned MM, Mahila Court-01, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, whereby the present petitioner/accused was discharged for the offences punishable under Ss. 354/354A/354D IPC in FIR No. 227/2017 registered at P.S. Preet Vihar, Delhi lodged at the instance of respondent No. 2.

(2.) The brief facts of the case, as illustrated by the Sessions Court in the impugned order (the name of the victim has been redacted) are as under:

(3.) The Trial Court while passing the aforesaid order of discharge compared the two statements of the complainant recorded under Ss. 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and opined that the statements were inconsistent. While passing the aforesaid order, the Trial Court also opined that the allegations of molestation and demand of sexual favours by the petitioner were quite general, omnibus and vague as they did not reveal any date, time or occasion when such misdeeds were actually committed by the petitioner. The Trial Court has also opined that in her initial statement, the complainant had stated that she had informed her family members about the incident, however, at the time of filing the charge sheet, none of her family members were made a witness. It was also opined that filing of complaint within two weeks of termination of her service could be seen as a handiwork of a disgruntled employee. It was also observed that the complainant did not furnish any messages/emails from the petitioner where sexual favours were sought from her.