$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 13.05.2025 + CRL.REV.P. 836/2024 & CRL.M.A. 19283/2024 VICTIM .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Virender Tarun and Mr.

Chirag Mahalwal, Advocates versus STATE AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for State along with SI Renu.

Mr. Mohit Sharma along with Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocates for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

1. The petitioner-victim, by way of this revision petition, has assailed the order on charge dated 23.03.2024 [hereafter „impugned order‟] passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [hereafter „Sessions Court‟] in case arising out of FIR No. 405/2022, registered at Police Station Wazirabad, Delhi.

2. Brief facts of the case, as per the prosecution, are that the victim had come to Delhi for preparation of competitive examinations and had met the accused in February 2019. They had exchanged phone numbers and had started talking to each other. It is alleged that the accused had clicked a few photographs of the victim Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.REV.P. 836/2024 Page 1 of 12 and thereafter had threatened to share the same with her family members. Under the threat of these photographs, he had allegedly established a forcible sexual relationship with her and had also video recorded the act. He had further threatened to circulate the video if she reported the matter to anyone. According to the victim, the accused had continued to pressure her by using the said photographs, and in June 2019, had called her to his room at Wazirabad, where he had emotionally blackmailed her and promised to marry her. On this assurance, he had again established a sexual relationship with her. Despite her refusal, the accused had allegedly continued to click her obscene photographs and threatened to make them public. She alleged that on subsequent occasions as well, the accused had forcibly established sexual relations with her under the continued threat of leaking her inappropriate photographs and video. The victim had further stated that the accused told her he would not marry her until he secured a job. In October 2021, her family members had gotten her engaged elsewhere, as the accused had refused to marry her. Thereafter, he had allegedly continued to threaten her with the release of her video and photographs and used to abuse her in filthy language, including abuses like „MC‟ and „BC‟. He had also allegedly threatened to kill her brother and fiancé. She further alleged that on 16.02.2022, when she came to Delhi to appear in her NET examination, the accused had called her after issuing threats and snatched away the documents she had brought for her exam. It is alleged that he had taken her to Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh (UP), forcibly made her sign some documents, and performed a mock Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.REV.P. 836/2024 Page 2 of 12 marriage with her. However, in her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., the victim stated that the accused had called her under threat, obtained photocopies of her documents, and forcibly took her signatures on certain affidavits. She claimed to have come to know after 3–4 days that she had signed marriage papers. She also alleged that the accused had demanded ₹10 lakhs from her for deleting her photographs and videos.

3. The FIR in this case was registered for offence under Sections 376(2)(n)/384/506/379(b) of IPC. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed for offence punishable under Sections

376/509/506/384/354D/201 of IPC.

4. By way of the impugned order on charge, the learned Sessions Court was pleased to frame charges against the accused for offence under Sections 506(II)/509/385 of IPC, and discharge him for offence under Sections 376/384/354D/201 of IPC.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-victim argues that the learned Sessions Court has failed to appreciate the