CRL.REV.P.--574/2016. Case: SMT KAVITA Vs. STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | CRL.REV.P.--574/2016 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | September 15, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
37# $
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P. 574/2016
% Decided on: 15th September,
SMT KAVITA ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr. B.N. Singh, Mr. Robin
George and Ms. Bharti,
Advocates.
versus
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondents
Represented by: Ms. Rajni Gupta, APP for the
State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
Crl. M.A. No. 14283/2016 (Recalling of order/restoration)
For the reasons stated in the application Crl. Rev. No.574/2016 is restored to its original position.
Application is disposed of.
CRL.REV.P. 574/2016
-
FIR No.914/2014 was registered for offences punishable Sections 376D/354B/509/34 IPC on the statement of the complainant stated that her sisters-in-law, brothers-in-law, tenant Pradeep and sisters used to speak ill of the character of the complainant. On the incident Laxmi, her sister-in-law Jyoti, brother-in-law Rinku again about her and when she tried to clarify the facts by going suddenly her brother-in-law Rinku and tenant Pradeep used language. They repeatedly called her prostitute and asked her to
relations with them. A scuffle ensued wherein Rinku caught hold of her suit which got torn. When she tried to compose herself Rinku caught hold of her hands and Pradeep put his hand in her salwar and inserted his finger private part. She further stated that she could withdraw from there and in the meantime, the neighbours and her husband came whereafter Rinku Pradeep ran inside their house and closed the door. Jyoti with folded pleaded to finish of the matter however, there were exchange of abuses even thereafter from both sides. She made a call to 100 number however, Investigating Officer came after one hour and refused to take her asking her to give an application in the Police Station. Thus on her complaint she sought action.
-
Statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she reiterated the allegations made in her complaint. During course of investigation it was also found that a CCTV camera was at the spot. Thus CCTV footage was looked into and the allegations complainant that Rinku tore her suit whereafter he caught hold of her and Pradeep put his finger in the private part of the complainant was Substantiated. Recording of the CCTV footage for the relevant time seized. Hard disk and the DVR of the CCTV were sent to the CFSL found no tampering in the recording of the hard disk because the footage was continuous and the mentioned timings were running second second. On the basis of the complaint, the statement of the under Section 164 Cr.P.C., statement of witnesses and the CCTV charge sheet was filed without arresting Rinku and Pradeep Kumar above noted FIR.
-
Vide the impugned order dated 11th May, 2016 learned Trial discharged Rinku and Pradeep. The learned Trial Court noted that Shak wife of Aslam, resident of first floor though supported the version prosecutrix however, the other residents of the house namely Seema, Laxmi, Sunita and Kishan Pal residing on the ground floor and the second stated that there were abuses only from both the sides. The learned Court also noted that during investigation it was revealed that there property dispute between both the sides, litigation was pending and FIR been filed against the husband of the prosecutrix which was investigation. Another FIR filed by the husband of the prosecutrix, investigation was pending trial before the Court concerned. It was also noted that both the sides kept on filing complaints against each other. As CCTV footage no physical scuffle could be seen between the...
To continue reading
Request your trial