The court emphasized the importance of specific and corroborated allegations in cases involving serious offences and highlighted the need for grave suspicion to frame charges under Section 376 of the IPC.

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.

State has filed this revision impugning order dated 07.12.2016 whereby the respondent has been discharged of the offence under Section 376 of the IPC.

2. Fir was registered consequent to the directions being issued under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. on a complaint filed by the prosecutrix/respondent.

3. The allegations in the FIR are that prosecutrix was known to the respondent/accused. Prosecutrix had kept a gold chain with the respondent/accused who is a jeweler. It is contended that her husband had died in the year 2005 and in 2006 she had gone to the respondent to take back her chain when she informed the respondent that her husband had expired.

4. It is alleged that he stated that he would take care of her and her child. She, however, objected stating that he was married to which respondent is alleged to have stated that he would take care of everything. It is alleged that one day, he took her in his car and forcefully made physical relationship with her. The car was alleged to be a Santro Car having tinted classes. It is alleged that thereafter also he made physical relations with her several times.

5. As per the complaint, the respondent had taken money from her and she even took loan from others to give to the respondent. He had assured to return the money. However, he did not return the same. He forcefully took her signatures on some blank papers and forcefully transferred her plot in his name. Further it is alleged that all her salary was taken by him and he even took blank cheques from her containing signatures. It is alleged that he had used the blank cheques and filed a complaint against her under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

6. Trial court, by the impugned order, noticed the contention of the respondent/accused that he had been falsely implicated and further that there was substantial delay in lodging the complaint, in as much as, the alleged forceful act was alleged to have taken place in or around 2006 and the complaint was lodged for the first time in the year 2013. Further, the trial court noticed the contention that the complaint was a counter-blast to the complaint filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the prosecutrix and also against her brother who had allegedly purchased jewellery items on credit and issued cheques.

7. The case of the respondent was that prosecutrix had taken a loan of Rs. 12.5 lakhs from him and in discharge thereof issued a cheque which had got dishonoured, leading to filing of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. As a counter-blast to the complaints filed by the respondent against the prosecutrix and also against her brother, he was implicated in this false case.

8. Trial Court, on going through the material collected during investigation, found that there was no medical evidence to corroborate the version of the prosecutrix and no complaint had been lodged by the prosecutrix till 28.01.2013; though she had alleged that she was raped in the year 2006.

9. Trial Court also noticed that in the complaint she had alleged that she was raped from the year 2006 till April, 2012 whereas when she was produced for her medical examination, she contended that she has been raped from year 2006 to 2010. No specific allegations with regard to the alleged offence had been mentioned by the prosecutrix.

10. Trial court on perusal of the record was of the view that the material placed on record did not give rise to grave suspicion against the respondent/accused for framing of charge under Section 376 IPC. Accordingly, by the impugned order respondent was discharged.

11. For the purposes of completeness, the allegations, as contained in the FIR are extracted hereunder:

1. ***** ***** *****

2. That the accused above named Shri Ajeet Soni running a jewellery shop in the Najafgarh area.

3. That the complainant was from time to time visiting the shop of the accused with her husband for purchase of jewell