JUDGMENT

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

1. The present petition is filed challenging the order dated 20.08.2019 (hereafter ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-Special FTC (‘ASJ’), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, pursuant to which Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 were discharged in SC No. 306/2019 arising out of FIR No. 39/2019 dated 31.01.2019, registered at Police Station RK Puram, for the offences under Sections 376/ 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’).

Brief Facts

2. Briefly stated, a complaint dated 11.05.2018 was filed by the petitioner with the Delhi Commission for Women, alleging that one Mahesh/accused No.1, physically exploited the petitioner for 13-14 years on the false pretext of marriage.

3. It was alleged therein that the accused Mahesh took the petitioner to the house of Respondent No. 5 in Tughlakabad, claiming that he was the brother of the accused Mahesh and that he would help in convincing the family in regard to their marriage, however, upon reaching the said house, the petitioner realized that Respondent No. 5 was not the brother of the accused Mahesh. It is alleged that Respondent No. 5 left the petitioner and the accused Mahesh at his house and went away to fetch milk after locking the house from outside, when the accused Mahesh forcefully established sexual relations with the petitioner and inflicted internal and external injuries upon her.

4. It was alleged that the accused Mahesh refused to marry the petitioner on the pretext that Respondent Nos. 2 and 4, who are the brother and mother of the accused Mahesh, are refusing to let him marry the petitioner and that Respondent No. 2, due to personal vengeance with the accused Mahesh, is causing rift between them, and has threatened Mahesh of dire consequences, in the event he marries the petitioner. It was further stated in the said complaint that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 threatened the petitioner and her father of dire consequences if any legal action is taken by them. Respondent No.3 is the friend of the accused Mahesh.

5. The MLC of the petitioner was conducted on 30.01.2019, wherein no external injury was found and there was no need for medical or surgical intervention, however, it has been stated therein by the petitioner that the accused Mahesh took her to the house of Respondent No. 5 in the year 2015, who locked the house from outside, when the accused Mahesh forcefully established sexual relations with her.

6. On 31.01.2019 the FIR No. 39/2019 was registered under Sections 376/506 of the IPC, wherein it was alleged that in the year 2007, the accused Mahesh called the petitioner at Papad Wali Gali, Ambedkar Basti on the pretext of helping her find a job, however he forcefully established sexual relations with her, and threatened her of dire consequences if she shared the information about the alleged incident with anyone.

7. Consequently, the statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) on 01.02.2019, wherein she narrated the incidents in regard to the accused Mahesh, since the year 2007. The petitioner stated that she confronted Respondent No. 4 regarding the sexual acts committed by her son, but instead of correcting her son, she threatened the petitioner of dire consequences if anything were to happen to Mahesh. She also narrated the incident that took place at the house of Respondent No. 5 allegedly in the year 2015, when she was forced to establish sexual relations with the accused Mahesh and was beaten by him, whereafter Respondent No. 5 asked the accused Mahesh “is the work done?” to which he replied “yes”. She further stated that on filing the complaint dated 11.05.2018, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 threatened to kill her and her father, due to which the petitioner even attempted to commit suicide.

8. The petitioner sent a letter dated 15.02.2019, addressed to the Delhi Commission for Women stating therein that