DEEPAK Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant Deepak seeks the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 qua FIR No. 141/2018, registered at PS Model Town, under Section 376 read with Section 313 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 submitting inter alia to the effect that he has been falsely implicated in the instant case and that the petitioner and the complainant had a long standing relationship which commenced from friendship to talking and chatting on the phone and then grew into a position to marry and thereafter the complainant of and on started asking money from the petitioner and the petitioner always paid the same through PayTM to her. It has been submitted through the application that both the petitioner and the complainant tried to convince their parents for the marriage but during the process the petitioner learnt of the complainant's illicit relations with others and also that she had relations with political persons and was an alcoholic. The petitioner has further submitted that on learning of the same when the petitioner asked the same to the complainant, the complainant cut her veins and threatened the petitioner that she would implicate him in a false rape case and demanded a large sum of money from the petitioner whereafter the petitioner stopped talking to the complainant.

(2.) The petitioner has submitted that on 203.2018, a complaint was filed by the complainant at PS Model Town and that when the police called him for investigation, the petitioner reached there and showed the evidences of the illicit relations of the complainant and then the complainant in a very shrewd manner in order to escape from legal consequences of making false complaints and false allegations against the petitioner withdrew the complaint on the pretext of the compromise and stated that she would sit and resolve the dispute and apologized to the petitioner and thus the petitioner did not show the photographs to the police at that time and the complaint was withdrawn. The petitioner has further submitted that he had not established any physical relationship with the complainant and rather it was the complainant who always insisted upon the petitioner for physical relationship which he always refused ethically and morally and that he had never established any physical relationship with the complainant on making any false promise of marriage. He has further submitted that the averments in the FIR itself indicate that the allegations of physical relationship against him showed consensual sex and that there is a distinction between rape and consensual sex as laid down in each of these cases where anticipatory bail has been granted, which are as under : -

(3.) The petitioner has further submitted that the complainant has nowhere alleged that the petitioner had established forcible physical relationship with her. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that he is willing to join the investigation as and when required.