The main legal point established is the requirement of grave suspicion to frame charges, the significance of tower locations and call detail records in establishing presence, and the importance of assessing the credibility of allegations based on delay in lodging the FIR and contradictory statements.

JUDGMENT :

1. This revision petition filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C is directed against the order dated 03.01.2018, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-Special Fast Track Court, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, in Case No.342/2017 where by the Additional Session Judge has discharged the accused from the charges under Sections 376, 328, 354A, 323, 506 and 509 IPC.

2. FIR No.23/2016, dated 05.01.2016 was registered at Police Station Safdarjung Enclave for offences under Sections 376, 328, 354A, 323, 506 and 509 IPC.

3. In the FIR the prosecutrix stated that she had been working in two companies Faison World Hauz Khas and Perfect Organiser belonging to the accused/respondent No.1 since six months prior to the lodging the complaint. It is stated that the respondent No.1 told the prosecutrix that he had divorced his wife and was staying separately and needed a capable woman to handle his work. It is stated by the prosecutrix that the accused made her the CEO and later partner in one of the said companies. The prosecutrix states that since there was no separate place for work, work related meetings and talks regarding work were held at the home of the accused/respondent No.1. It is alleged in the complaint that one day, the accused called her home, he mixed some intoxicant in her cold drink because of which she went into a semi-conscious state and respondent No.1 raped her four times. It is stated that the prosecutrix got up in the morning and started crying. The respondent No.1 told her that he liked her and wanted to marry her. It is stated that after that incident the respondent No.1 made her his partner and told her that he would gradually pay her salary. It is stated that the respondent No.1 started harassing the prosecutrix for salary and stopped paying her salary and removed her from the job. It is stated that when the prosecutrix questioned the action of respondent No.1, he told her that due to financial constraints he was terminating their partnership and that she would be working with one Mr. Batra, who would pay her salary as well as profit. It is stated that when the prosecutrix asked for her dues, the respondent No.1 refused to pay the same. The prosecutrix gave him a call and asked the respondent No.1 for a meeting. It is alleged that the respondent No.1 called her to his office and gave her one month's salary and that too in two parts – half was paid in cash and the other half was by way of cheque which was issued in a wrong name. It is alleged that the prosecutrix protested. It is alleged that the respondent No.1 told her to come to Safdarjung Club where he would make another cheque with correct name. It is alleged that the prosecutrix went to Safdarjung to collect her salary. It is stated that respondent No.1 came there with the other accused/respondent No.2, who was working in the office of the respondent No.1 and her husband. It is alleged that the respondent No.1 told the prosecutrix that if she persisted with her demand of money he would viral her video, which he had made. It is alleged that out of anger the prosecutrix went to the parking area. It is alleged that the respondent No.1 followed her and also threatened her. It is alleged that the respondent No.2 and her husband Prakash also came to the parking with the respondent No.1 and when they saw that the prosecutrix was alone, they started quarrelling with her. It is stated that one Heena (friend of the prosecutrix) had accompanied the prosecutrix and was sitting in the car and was waiting for her to return. It is stated that the respondent No.2 abused the prosecutrix and the respondent No.1 caught hold of her and tried to touch her inappropriately. It is also alleged that the respondent No.1 also gave a blow on her head with watch/kada, which he was wearing. It is stated that the prosecutrix sat in the car and locked herself and as she was trying to leave in her car, all three of them attempted to follow her. She managed to escape in her car.

4.