AJAT MITTAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant Revision Petition has been preferred by the petitioner to challenge the legality and propriety of an order dated 30.08.2014 of learned Additional Sessions Judge by which the petitioner was charged for commission of offences under Sections 328/376/420/506/313/406 and 376 read with Section 417 IPC. Status Report is on record.

(2.) I have heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor and have examined the Trial Court record. Admittedly, the prosecutrix 'X' (assumed name) and the petitioner were acquainted with each other since 2006. 'X' lodged a comprehensive written complaint implicating the petitioner for committing various offences on 01.03.2012. Upon completion of investigation, a charge -sheet against the petitioner under Sections 376/328/506 IPC was filed. It is relevant to note that the petitioner's mother and sister were not charge -sheeted though they were also implicated in the complaint. By an order dated 2.2.2013, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. for the offences under Sections 376/328/506 IPC and committed the case to the Court of Sessions on 06.05.2014. By the impugned order the learned Sessions Court, prima facie, found the petitioner to have committed the aforesaid offences.

(3.) ON perusal of the materials collected during investigation by the Investigating Agency, I find no sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioner under Sections 328/313/406 IPC. There is a bald statement of the prosecutrix in the complaint that on 10.12.2007 when the petitioner visited her residence and expressed desire to have a cold drink, she brought cold drink in two glasses; one for herself and the other for the petitioner. The petitioner then desired to have some snacks also with the cold drink. When she went to the kitchen to bring the snacks and took her cold drink on return, it tasted a little different. Soon her limbs started shaking and the cold drink fell from her hands; she became unconscious. When she regained senses, she was shocked to find herself completely nude. During investigation, allegations of having been administered some poisonous or stupefying substance could not be verified or confirmed. The prosecutrix did not get herself medically examined any time soon after the said incident. Nature of 'substance' allegedly mixed in the cold drink could not be ascertained. Nothing emerged as to from where any such 'substance' was procured by the petitioner. It is on record that subsequent to that, the petitioner and the prosecutrix had maintained their friendly relations. Physical relations were established; albeit on the alleged promise of marriage on various occasions. 'X' did not complain about petitioner's conduct promptly to the police. In Prashant Bharti vs. State (NCT of Delhi) : (2013) 9 SCC 113, the victim had alleged that the accused therein had offered her cold drink (Pepsi) allegedly containing poisonous/intoxicating substance. After drinking the same, she felt inebriated whereupon the appellant started misbehaving with her and also touched her breasts. She was taken for medical examination but no evidence of poisoning was found by the police during investigation. The Apex Court quashed the charge under Section 328 IPC observing that allegations levelled by the prosecutrix of having been administered some intoxicant in a cold drink could not be established by the cogent evidence.