PANKAJ MALHOTRA Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is directed against the order of charge dated 21.3.2005 and charge framed on that date itself by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi.

(2.) The charges framed against the petitioner are as under:-

(3.) The prosecution case is that the petitioner married the complainant (Indu) on 4.10.1997 and they lived together till March, 2001. It is alleged that in March, 2001, the complainant Indu made a complaint against the petitioner in the Crime against Women Cell. Subsequently, they started living together till 31.3.2003. It is further alleged that the petitioner continued to stay with the complainant except whenever he used to go out for the purpose of his business and the complainant claimed that she continued to cohabit with the petitioner till 31.3.2003. It is alleged that in the morning of 31.3.2003, the complainant (Indu) was shocked when 9-10 persons knocked at the door with a lady named Pooja who claimed that the petitioner had been illegally living with the complainant (Indu) because, according to them, on 9.12.2002 the said Pooja got married with the petitioner and that the petitioner had already divorced the complainant (Indu). Apparently, an ex parte divorce order had been obtained by the petitioner on 4.4.2002 in respect of the marriage with Indu. It is alleged that the complainant (Indu) was unaware of the ex parte proceedings and did not know of the alleged divorce. It is further alleged that the petitioner had sexual intercourse with the complainant (Indu) and she consented to the same being under the impression that she was lawfully married to the petitioner and that their marriage subsisted. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner obtained the ex parte divorce by subterfuge; he did not inform the complainant (Indu) of this divorce proceedings or the ex parte order passed on 4.4.2002 but continued to have sexual intercourse with her as she was under the misconception that their marriage subsisted. It is, therefore, alleged by the prosecution that the petitioner has committed rape. The second allegation is of having committed an offence under Section 493 IPC. After the registration of the FIR No 363/2003 under Section 376/493 IPC at Police Station Malviya Nagar on 5.5.2003 on the basis of the statement made by the complainant (Indu), the petitioner was arrested by the police on that date itself. Subsequently, after about two months i.e. on 5.7.2003, the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. After completion of investigation the Investigating Agency submitted the charge sheet. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 21.3.2005 the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges mentioned above.