YOGESH GUPTA Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is seeking anticipatory protection. This Court had declined anticipatory protection to the petitioner on earlier date. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been serious change in the circumstances and the complainant has since realised her folly and has categorically even before the Trial Judge stated that due to a misunderstanding and misapprehension this FIR has been registered against the petitioner. This in fact was a consent relationship that the victim shared with the petitioner.

(2.) The order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 29.10.2015 noting these facts have been perused. The Sessions Judge has, however, declined to give anticipatory protection to the petitioner vide order dated 07.11.2015. The Sessions Judge had noted the non-inclination of this Court to grant anticipatory protection to the petitioner on the earlier date. It is pointed out by the Learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner had also been declared a proclaimed offender.

(3.) The prosecutrix is present in person. Her presence has been identified by the Investigating Officer as also her counsel. She has been queried. She admits that due to her folly she got this FIR registered against the petitioner.