ANIL KUMAR MALIK Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present case FIR was registered against thepetitioner under Sections 376/384/506/34 Indian Penal Code at the instance of the complainant, namely, Smt. Kusum Malik.

(2.) Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that before hermarriage with Shri O.P. Malik in January 1981, she had exchanged somecorrespondence with the petitioner Anil Kumar Malik, who happens to bethe cousin brother of her husband. She has alleged that in the year 1986 byshowing those letters, the petitioner started black-miling her on the threatthat in case she would not submit to his lust, he would show those letters toher husband. The complainant has alleged that under the aforesaid threats,she continued submitting to his lust for many years and during this period heeven brought certain other persons to satisfy their lust with her. In hercomplaint she further alleged that somewhere in August 1992 her husbandgot suspicious and she told each and everything to her husband. She hasfurther alleged that her husband got great shock to hear all this and he became unconscious and had to be taken to St. Stephens' Hospital and againafter 8/10 days, he was taken to the said hospital. The complainant hasfurther alleged that on 14/10/1992 she decided to kill the petitionerand thereafter to commit suicide but she could not succeed in this task. Shehas further alleged that thereafter the matter was discussed with the eldersand the elders advised her and her husband not to report the matter to thepolice as it will affect their reputation. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaintthat inspite of this the petitioner and his father gave beating to the husbandof the complainant on 8/01/1993 when he had gone to the house ofthe petitioner to remove his goods and in the meanwhile the police camethere and took the members of both the parties to the police station andallowed them to go at 9.30 p.m. At the police station it came to light thatthe petitioner and his father had lodged many false reports against the complainant's husband and in the present complaint police was requested that thecomplainant and her husband be saved from the petitioner and his father andaction be taken in accordance with law.

(3.) Mr. Grover, learned Counsel for the petitioner drew my attentionto the statement of the complainant and submitted that the complainant herself has admitted that the fact regarding her alleged rape by the petitionerwas disclosed by her to her husband in August 1992 but the report was lodged with the police by the complainant on 16/01/1993. He submittedthus there is substantial delay of about five months in lodging the report forwhich there is no satisfactory explanation. He submitted that in fact thecomplainant had lodged the report only after she came to know that certainreports have already been lodged by the petitioner. He drew my attentionto the reports dated 5/11/1992 and 9th, 11/01/1993 whereinit is alleged that the complainant was sent by her husband with an intentionto murder the petitioner. He said that this fact has been even admitted bythe complainant in her complaint that she tried to kill the petitioner but shefailed. Learned Counsel also submitted that the complaint was filed with aview to counter the complaints filed by the petitioner.