The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of credible evidence to justify summoning under specific sections of the IPC, and the court's discretion to evaluate the sufficiency of evidence at the stage of summoning.

S.P. GARG, J.

1. File taken up today as 7th July, 2016 fixed for pronoucement was declared holiday on account of ‘Id ul-Fitr’.

2. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 08.05.2013 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Crl.Rev.No.76/13 (RBT) whereby order dated 12.09.2011 of learned Metropolitan Magistrate summoning the respondent Nos.1 and 2 for commission of offence only under Section 323 IPC was upheld. The petition is contested by the respondents.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Admitted position is that the petitioner was working as PRO and Operation Assistant with respondent No.1 since December, 1999. She left her job from Goyal Eye Institute in August, 2006 and joined another institute. She filed the complaint case under Sections 324, 325, 376, 506 (2) and 511 IPC against respondent Nos.1 and 2 on 17.02.2007. Her application under Section 156 (3) was dismissed by an order dated 10.07.2007 observing that only a case under Section 323 IPC was made out which was a non-cognizable offence. The petitioner challenged the said order in Revision. However, she opted to withdraw the said revision petition on 28.02.2008.

4. In order to support her contentions, she examined herself as CW-1 besides producing CW-2 Rajesh Kumar, Record Clerk from Sushrut Trauma Centre, LNJP Hospital, CW-3 Desh Raj, Record Clerk from DDU Hospital, and CW-4 Dr.Usha Lal from Lal Nursing and Maternity Home. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the pre-summoning evidence, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate by an order dated 12.09.2011 summoned the respondent Nos.1 and 2 only for commission of offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. This order was challenged in revision which resulted in dismissal vide order dated 08.05.2013. Aggrieved by the orders, the instant petition has been preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the courts below did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective. Petitioner’s prayer for further ‘investigation’ was declined without cogent reasons. Ingredients of Section 376(D) are attracted. ‘X’ was sexually exploited on various occasions by respondent No.1. Her consent (if any) to have physical relations was of no consequence as respondent No.1 was in dominating position. The complainant had produced on record cogent medical evidence to show that she had became pregnant and the pregnancy was terminated on 15.12.2000 at Dr.Lal’s hospital at Gurgaon in the name of ‘Tina’. The respondent No.1 had established physical relations with the prosecutrix at his clinic, residence and hotels in Delhi and Pune without her consent. The respondent had also given beatings to her several times. On 2.1.2003, respondent No.1 had cut her wrists with a blade on her protest to sexual harassment and she got treatment at Sushrut Taruma Centre on 03.01.2003. In the first week of October, 2004, she was beaten by respondent Nos.1 and 2 she was taken to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and thereafter was treated at Goyal Eye Institute. Counsel further urged that, prima facie, there was sufficient material to proceed against respondent No.1 for the commission of offence under Section 376(D). The Trial Court was not justified to evaluate the evidence minutely at the stage of summoning. She relied upon Sukhwinder Kaur vs. Kulwinder Singh & Ors. 2004 (1) CC Cases (HC) 42; Dr. S.S. Khanna vs. Chief Secretary, Patna AIR 1983 SC 595; Azija Begum vs. State of Maharashtra, 2012 (1) CC Cases (SC) 167; Gurdeep Kaur vs. Balbir Singh & Ors. 2005 (2) CC Cases (HC) 95; Pratibha Rani vs. Suraj Kumar & Anr. AIR 1985 SC 628 and Vijay Mahajan vs. State of Haryana 2004 (1) CC Cases (HC) 272.

6. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 urged that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders. Delay of six years in instituting the complaint has not been