The court emphasized the importance of evidence, the power of the Magistrate to take cognizance, and the need for restraint and caution before interfering with the order of taking cognizance. It also highlighted the vital role of the victim's testimony in sexual offences and stressed that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection.

S.P. GARG, J.

1. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.89/2013 registered under Sections 354/509 IPC at Police Station Amar Colony and consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The petition is contested by the respondents.

2. In brief, facts of the case are that on 20.02.2013, the complainant/respondent No.2 lodged a complaint at Police Station Patel Nagar alleging receipt of missed calls on her mobile from Mobile Nos.9811950000 and 9811114733 for the last one month. On enquiry, the petitioner informed the police that he had been receiving message from the complainant’s mobile. The complainant denied to have any acquaintance with the petitioner. On 21.02.2013, the complainant and the petitioner were called at Police Station Patel Nagar. The petitioner filed a written complaint vide DD No.67B at Police Station Patel Nagar informing that on receipt of SMSs on his mobile No.9811114733 on 16th, 18th and 19th February, 2013, he had called back on 19.02.2013 and a lady answering the call denied to have send any such message. On 25.02.2013, the complainant lodged FIR alleging that at around 1.30 a.m. two persons on a bike, stopped her car and misbehaved with her. The pillion rider was alleged to be the present petitioner. It was further alleged that the petitioner used sexually explicit words and tried to disrobe her. On 07.03.2013, the instant FIR was lodged under Section 354/354B/509 IPC against the petitioner.

3. During investigation, on analyzing Call Detail Records of the petitioner’s mobile, it was found that on 25.02.2013, the petitioner had left his residence at around 10.50 a.m. to go to his shop at Khan Market. Petitioner’s presence could not be established at East of Kailash at 11.30 a.m. as alleged by the complainant. On 31.08.2013, the Investigating Agency filed closure report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. claiming lack of evidence against the petitioner except the allegations made by the complainant. On 17.07.2014, Protest Petition against the closure report was filed by the complainant. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate in her order dated 02.01.2015 observed that the investigation carried out by the investigating agency was not satisfactory. Further investigation was ordered to be carried out. On 19.03.2015, the complainant recorded her 164 Cr.P.C. statement. Again, on 16.07.2015, the police filed second closure report reiterating lack of evidence. The Trial Court by its order dated 10.09.2015, summoned the petitioner to face trial observing that there was sufficient material to take cognizance.

4. Learned Senior counsel urged that the investigating agency was unable to collect any evidence, whatsoever, to connect the petitioner with the crime. The allegations leveled by the complainant in the complaint/FIR could not be substantiated during investigation. It has come on record that the complainant was a close family friend of one Paramjeet Singh who was a business partner of the petitioner and a dispute had arisen between the two. The complaint was apparently motivated at Paramjeet Singh’s behest. Learned Senior counsel further urged that as per Call Detail Records, there was only three telephonic contacts between the complainant and the petitioner on 19.2.2013 as under:-      

5. The Call Detail Records would reveal that the petitioner was not present in East of Kailash where the alleged incident took place. The investigating agency has recorded the statements of many witnesses to sh