2023 Supreme(Del) 5939
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.
Rajan Devi - Appellant
Versus
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. - Respondents
Cr.M.C. 2159 of 2020
Decided On : 13-09-2023
Mr. Tarun Gupta and Mr. Anmol Mishra, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for the State with WSI Sanju Kumari, PS Palam Village.
Mr. Nonu S. Khera, Senior Advocate alongwith Mohd. Ahsan Khanji, Advocate for R-2.
Headnote:
DEROGATORY LANGUAGE - CRIMINAL LAW - [Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C')] - [Section 482] - [Sections 376/506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC')] - The court analyzed the use of derogatory language in pleadings and emphasized the necessity of reasonable diligence while drafting pleadings. It also highlighted the importance of balancing the use of 'strong language' with the cause of justice. The court directed the Trial Courts to add a paragraph in their orders/judgments to convey that nothing expressed in the said order/judgment shall be construed as an expression of opinion of the Court on the merits of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner/complainant alleged that the accused, under false pretext of marriage, committed rape and cheated her. The accused was granted anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-02, South-West, Dwarka Courts, Delhi. The petitioner challenged the grant of anticipatory bail, arguing that the case was serious in nature and the accused had sexually exploited her.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the learned ASJ had made observations on the merits of the case at the stage of grant of anticipatory bail, virtually exonerating the accused of all charges. The court emphasized that such observations should not be considered as an opinion on the merits of the case and directed Trial Courts to include a paragraph in their orders/judgments to convey the same.
Issues: The issues included the grant of anticipatory bail to the accused, the use of derogatory language in pleadings, and the necessity of refraining from passing remarks that could be treated as the final conclusion on an issue at the stage of grant of bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision emphasized the importance of refraining from making conclusive findings at the stage of grant of anticipatory bail, especially when the investigation is not complete. It also highlighted the need for Trial Courts to add a paragraph in their orders/judgments to convey that nothing expressed in the said order/judgment shall be construed as an expression of opinion of the Court on the merits of the case.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the petition, issuing directions/guidelines for Trial Courts to avoid passing remarks that could be treated as the final conclusion on an issue at the stage of grant of bail and to add a paragraph in their orders/judgments to convey that nothing expressed in the said order/judgment shall be construed as an expression of opinion of the Court on the merits of the case.
JUDGMENT
Index to the Judgment
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
ARGUMENTS ADDRESSED BY BOTH THE PARTIES
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
USE OF DEROGATORY LANGUAGE IN PLEADINGS
i. Necessity of Reasonable Diligence While Drafting Pleadings
ii. Balancing the Use of `Strong Language' with the Cause of Justice
CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.
1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C') has been filed by the petitioner seeking setting aside of order dated 13.10.2020, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-02, South-West, Dwarka Courts, Delhi (`learned ASJ') in B.M.4006/2020 whereby anticipatory bail has been granted to accused/respondent no. 2.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. Brief facts of the case are that the present FIR bearing no. 574/2020 was registered on 19.08.2020 under Sections 376/506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC') at Police Station Palam Vihar, on the basis of a complaint lodged by the petitioner/complainant alleging therein that respondent no. 2 had committed rape upon her on false pretext of marriage and had cheated the complainant. It is alleged that the complainant/petitioner is a single mother of two children and is doing her own business in Punjab, and the respondent no. 2 used to send messages to petitioner on regular basis since August, 2019 on her WhatsApp number, however, she never used to reply to the same. It is stated that the complainant always wanted to settle down in her life and get married to a responsible person as she did not want to involve herself in a fake relationship, and she had conveyed this fact to respondent no. 2. As mentioned in the complaint, the complaint had provided the screenshots of the WhatsApp conversation between her and the accused/respondent no. 2. It is further alleged that in the very first audio and video call, she had informed the respondent no. 2 that she has two children, however, the accused always insisted to meet her in person, but the complainant had refused to meet him. It is stated that on 27.10.2019, respondent no. 2 had again started sending WhatsApp messages to her on one pretext or the other and had also started making video calls to her which she never used to answer. He, however, always pressurized her to attend the video calls. It is alleged that respondent no. 2 had allured the complainant and had told her that he was in love with her and wanted to get married to her. She, however, alleges that he had disclosed his name as Akash Thakur and not Ashish Thakur. It is also alleged that she used to visit her native home at Haryana and during that time, respondent no. 2 had made a WhatsApp video call alongwith routine ordinary calls to the complainant and had also spoken to her sister, sister-in-law and her children, and he had tried to convince family members of the complainant that he was interested to get married to her. It is stated that the family members of the complainant had tried to make him understand that his family will not accept the complainant as she already has two children, however, he had convinced sister of the complainant that he will handle this issue himself and will convince his family. The victim was allured and the accused/respondent no. 2 had succeeded in making the petitioner fall in love with him, however, he had exploited the emotions and feelings of the petitioner. As alleged, the respondent no. 2 had requested the complainant that she should inform him whenever she will visit her residence at Delhi as he wanted to visit Delhi to meet her. Allegedly, he had again started calling her during day and night and had tried to convince her that she should personally meet him to know him better. Therefore, the complainant had gone to meet him in Delhi on 27.01.2020 and had informed Ashish Thakur that she was in Delhi. The respondent no. 2 had also reached Delhi at her residence where he had again convinced the complainant that he considered her as his legally wedded wife and he had started addressing her as not