LAWS(DLH)-2018-1-366

X Vs. STATE

Decided On January 10, 2018
X Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayers in the present petition are inter-alia quashing the chargesheet dated 10th January, 2015 pursuant to FIR No.497/2014 registered at PS Sangam Vihar for offences punishable under Sections 363/376 IPC filed before the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge/ Fast Tract Court, Saket, de-novo investigation, directions to the learned MM Saket Court to expeditiously dispose of Criminal Complaint CC No.32127/2014 at PS Sangam Vihar.

(2.) Case of the petitioner is that she made a PCR call on the 21st September, 2014 to lodge a complaint under Section 363/376 IPC against the accused namely Pradeep. On arrival the PCR Van took the petitioner to PS Sangam Vihar, however instead of lodging the complaint she was pressurised to withdraw her complaint including by the NGO concerned. On 22nd September, 2014 the petitioner was compelled to enter into illegal marriage with the accused. On 23rd September, 2014 the petitioner managed to escape with the aid of her sister and lodged a complaint of rape against Pradeep and the illegal activities of the Police Officers and the number of NGO. On the intervention of the DCP (South-East) FIR No.497/2014 was registered under Section 328/343/376/363 IPC at PS Sangam Vihar. However, the investigating officer did not record the statements and produced the petitioner before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate before him she made her complete statement.

(3.) Since the petitioner was receiving constant threats and the associates of the accused barged into her house, she filed a complaint before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. being CC No.32127/2014 which is pending before the said Court. In the FIR lodged by the petitioner i.e. FIR No.497/2014 charge-sheet has been filed and the learned Fast Track Court having taken cognizance of offences has framed charges against accused under Section 376/343 IPC and the evidence thereon has commenced. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the first instance her FIR was not lodged.