MOHSIN KHAN Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRL.REV.P. 124/2017 By filing this revision petition under Section 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner Mohsin Khan is questioning the legality of the order on charge dated 6th January, 2017 whereby he has been ordered to be charged for committing the offence punishable under Section 376/506/384 IPC.

(2.) Mr. M.A. Hasan, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the FIR no allegation of rape was levelled against the petitioner. It was only at the stage of recording of statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that such allegations were levelled about the incident which has allegedly taken place about 8-10 years ago that too without mentioning the place, date, time, month or year of the alleged offence. Thus the charge under Section 376/506/384 IPC could not have been framed against the petitioner.

(3.) FIR No.457/2016 has been registered against the petitioner on the basis of complaint made by Smt. 'K' (name withheld to conceal her identity) wherein she has stated that during the period 2007-2009 she was having an affair with the petitioner. However, the petitioner started blackmailing her for money and harassing her. On being fed up with this conduct of the petitioner, she left for Kerala and got married there in the year 2009. The Complainant also mentioned that during the period she was having affair with the petitioner, he had her objectionable photographs and video recording. After staying in Kerala for about three years, she returned to Delhi alongwith her husband. The petitioner again started contacting her through facebook and compelled her to meet him, therefore, she blocked him on the facebook. Thereafter the petitioner starting meeting her near her office. He had shown to her the objectionable photographs. Then she starting behaving normally with him so that she could get the photographs deleted due to her soft behaviour. Once the photographs were deleted, she started ignoring him and then the petitioner again openly threatened her that he had some objectionable video of her before her marriage and if she refuse to continue the relationship, it will be shown to her husband. The petitioner even threatened to kill her husband on her refusal to keep the relations with him. As per the FIR, the petitioner was working at the shop of Sh. Jitender Shukla, who is friend of husband of the complainant and the petitioner had also shown her objectionable videos to Jitender Shukla and his staff to blackmail her.