The necessity of awaiting crucial supplementary evidence before concluding on charges in sexual offense cases.

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

1. By way of these petitions, the State as well as the victim seek setting aside of the order dated 09.05.2023 (hereafter ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTSC (RC), Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereafter ‘Sessions Court’) in Sessions Case No. 336/2021, arising out of FIR bearing No. 254/2020, registered at Police Station Rajinder Nagar, Delhi for the commission of offence punishable under Section 3 76 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter ‘ IPC ') and Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 .

2. Briefly stated, facts of the present case as per prosecution are that the accused Yatin Kalra and the prosecutrix ‘SG’ had known each other for about 11–12 years, having first met in 2001 during school. In 2011, the accused had proposed marriage to the prosecutrix, and in 2013, when she had returned to India, she had CRL.REV.P.1316/2023 & connected matter Page 2 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed entered into a serious relationship with him on his persuasion. It was alleged that the accused, being her fiancé and long-term boyfriend, had forced her into physical relations after making a false promise to marry her. Their engagement ceremony had taken place on 19.11.2018, during which the accused and his family had allegedly taken substantial amounts of cash, jewellery, and other expensive items from the prosecutrix’s family. It was further alleged that the accused’s mother, Renu Kalra, had demanded a flat in Noida, his father, Mukesh Kalra, had sought to control the prosecutrix’s business in Mauritius, and his sister, Prema Kalra, had abused her and demanded costly jewellery and gifts. The prosecutrix’s parents had given cash of ₹2,17,900/-, gold jewellery, rings, and other valuable items to the accused’s family members at the time of engagement. Thereafter, the accused had repeatedly engaged in sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix at various locations, including his residence in New Rajinder Nagar, a hotel in Mussoorie, and in Mauritius, on the pretext of marriage, on multiple occasions between January 2019 and March 2020. It was alleged that despite repeated assurances to fix the marriage date, the accused had begun misbehaving with her, making derogatory remarks, and, along with his family, had abused her and defamed her family in society by spreading rumours of their impending bankruptcy. The prosecutrix alleged that she had been exploited physically, emotionally, mentally, and financially by the accused and his family members, and that the accused’s promise to marry her had been false from the inception. CRL.REV.P.1316/2023 & connected matter Page 3 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the learned Sessions Court.

3. By way of the impugned order, the accused was discharged for commission of the alleged offences.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the victim as well as learned APP for the State contended that the physical relations had been established by the accused with the victim on multiple occasions over a period of nearly one and a half years, consistently on the false pretext of marriage, though from the very inception there had been no intention on the part of the accused to marry her. It was further submitted that the order passed by the learned Sessions Court was not only incorrect on facts but also erroneous in law. The learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to the fact that the supplementary chargesheet in this case was yet to be filed, which fact was within the knowledge of the learned Sessions Court, and that certain documents on which the victim was placing reliance had already been handed over to the Investigating Officer and were to form part of the supplementary chargesheet. It was, therefore, urged that the impugned order of the learned Sessi