STEVEN SEHGAL Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl. M.A.16857/2016 (under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C for recalling of order dated 4th July, 2014)

(2.) Respondent no.2/applicant has now filed the present application seeking recalling of order dated 4th July, 2017 passed in Crl. MC 2881/2014 and revival of proceedings arising from FIR 654/2013 registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj.

(3.) In the present application, respondent no.2/applicant noting the contents of her affidavit filed on 30th June, 2013 along with Crl.MC 2881/2014, has sought recalling of the order of 4th July, 2016 by stating that her consent was obtained by the petitioner by playing fraud upon this court as her consent had been obtained by undue force, pressure and coercion upon her. When this application came up before this court on 26th Oct., 2016, this court permitted the respondent no.2/applicant to file an additional affidavit explaining as to how her consent was taken with coercion and forcefully when the FIR in question was got quashed before this Court on 4th July, 2016. Additional affidavit of respondent no.2/applicant has since been filed. In the additional affidavit filed by respondent no.2/applicant, it is stated that the sister of respondent no.2/applicant is married with brother of the petitioner and was living with her husband at the time of the incident. After registration of FIR, respondent no.2/applicant was approached by the petitioner/non-applicant for quashing of the FIR on account of fact that her (respondent no.2/applicant's) sister was living with brother of the petitioner/non-applicant. For the sake of her sister's marriage, respondent no.2/applicant had no option but to succumb to the pressure and agreed to the quashing of the FIR though serious non-compoundable offences of public nature were made out. Respondent no.2/applicant was kept under constant threat that in case she does anything, her sister would be thrown out of the matrimonial home. Thus, on account of undue influence exercised by the petitioner and his family members upon Respondent no.2/applicant and her family, compromise was entered into though consent was not free.