DILIP NIGAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 438 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 228/2013 registered at Police Station Roop Nagar under Sections 354A/506 IPC.

(2.) THE FIR was registered on the complaint of prosecutrix wherein it has been alleged that she had worked as a part time data entry operator and accountant in the year 2009 with Dilip Nigam. In May, 2012 Dilip Nigam approached her mother at her house in Kamla Nagar and urged for appointing her on regular job. At that time complainant used to work in call centre and part time with Dilip Nigam, but he managed to appoint her as full time job by offering her residential accommodation. On 20th September, 2013 he took her to Jammu pretending to go to Manesar, Haryana, for a meeting with a client where he took her in a hotel room and tried to induce her to make physical relations with him. He put off his clothes and laid her on the bed and tried to remove her clothes but somehow she successfully averted the situation. When she opposed his act, then he took her photographs and threatened her to upload the same on internet. She further alleged that Dilip Nigam continued his bad eye on her at his office at Shalimar Bagh where the complainant also used to reside with her family despite the promise not to repeat such activities. She shifted from Shalimar Bagh to Kamla Nagar but he followed her and used to threaten her to indulge her in false case and started sending notice through advocate with intention to harass. He also sent messages on her mobile phone.

(3.) THE application is opposed by learned APP for the State as well as by learned counsel for the complainant who submitted that the allegations made in the complaint are very serious in nature. The same were corroborated by the complainant in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It was further submitted that petitioner forged the signatures of the complainant in the alleged licence agreement and filed a claim petition for initiating arbitration proceedings. The complainant has moved an application under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for dismissal of the claim petition for grant of valid arbitration agreement. The Investigating Officer has also placed on record copies of the SMS sent by the petitioner to the complainant during the period of 20th December, 2012 to 28th December, 2012. The accused has not joined investigation which is at initial stage, as such, he is not entitled to the relief.