DEVESH BHARDWAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereafter 'Cr.P.C.'] has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, seeking quashing of chargesheet and proceedings in SC/3339/2018, arising from FIR No. 416/2018, registered at Police Station Shakarpur, Delhi, for offence punishable under Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter 'IPC'].

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that on 1/9/2018, a complaint was filed by the complainant, i.e. respondent no. 2 herein. In her complaint, the complainant stated that she had first met the petitioner in 2007 during her college years, during which he had acted as her brother, and had gained the trust of her family members. The complainant further stated that after completing college, the petitioner had informed her that she should no longer consider him as a brother. She alleged that in October-November 2016, the petitioner had started visiting her more frequently, spending considerable time with her, and had told her that he knew her ex-husband, whom he described as not a good person. Over the period of time, they had begun meeting almost daily, and the petitioner had also shared details about his ex-girlfriend. She further stated that on 26/1/2017, the petitioner had taken her on a date and had attempted to get closer to her. On 18/2/2017, on the occasion of her birthday, the petitioner had visited her house with a bouquet and had proposed marriage. Additionally, she stated that on 1/3/2017, she and the petitioner had attended the wedding of a mutual friend. After the wedding, the petitioner had taken her to a friend's house in Indirapuram, Delhi, where he had allegedly attempted to establish physical relations with the complainant, but she had refused. The complainant also alleged in her complaint that on 25/3/2017, the petitioner had taken her to Hotel Clark Inn, Kaushambi, Delhi, and had insisted on engaging in sexual relations. She further stated that, thereafter, the petitioner had taken her to hotels, his friends' houses, and other places where they had engaged in physical relations. However, whenever she had asked him about marriage, he had sought more time. She also alleged that on 16/8/2017, they had stayed at Hotel Umrao, near Gurugram, where the petitioner had advised her to divorce her husband, promising that they would settle in the United States of America afterwards. She has further stated that whenever she had visited the petitioner's house, his parents had assured her that they would arrange their marriage soon. The petitioner and respondent no. 2 had prepared and studied for settling in the USA and had also given the IELTS exam for this purpose. After some time, they had changed their plan and had decided to settle in Australia and spend their matrimonial life there. On 27/3/2018, the complainant had obtained a mutual consent divorce from her husband. It is alleged that on the same day, the petitioner and complainant had met, and the petitioner had established physical relations with her in a Oyo Hotel, on the false pretext of marriage. However, on 20/5/2018, the petitioner had ultimately refused to marry her. On these allegations, the present FIR came to be registered. The statement of the complainant was recorded under Sec. 164 of the Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the petitioner.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the petitioner, who is a young engineering professional working in a prestigious multinational company, has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the complaint was cleverly drafted by respondent no. 2 in a manner to suggest that she was not married at the time she had started meeting the petitioner. However, the respondent no. 2 is an educated woman, who was already married at the relevant time. It is further argued that even if the allegations in the FIR are assumed to be true at face value, no offence under Sec. 376 of IPC is made out against the petitioner. A plain reading of the FIR reveals that respondent no. 2 was in a consensual relationship with the petitioner while her marriage was still subsisting. The learned counsel submits that, as per allegations in the FIR, respondent no. 2 had started engaging in sexual relations with the petitioner in March 2017, while by her own admission, she had obtained a mutual consent divorce from her husband only on 27/3/2018. This clearly indicates that respondent no. 2 was already married during the period she was in a relationship with the petitioner, and the said relationship was entirely consensual. The learned counsel further argues that respondent no. 2 has misused the legal process to blackmail the petitioner with the intention of extorting money from him. It is submitted that she had even filed a false complaint against the petitioner at his workplace, which was duly investigated by an internal committee. The said inquiry had exonerated the petitioner, finding no merit in the allegations made by respondent no. 2. This, according to the petitioner, is yet another indication of the mala fide intent behind the complaint. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that the allegations in the FIR are entirely false, baseless, and an abuse of the legal process. The learned counsel, therefore, prays for the quashing of the chargesheet and all consequential proceedings arising out of the present FIR.