W.P. (Crl) No.1775/2010 & Crl.M.C. No.1166/2010 Page 1 of 22

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

+

W.P.(CRL) 1775/2010

RANBIR S. ARORA

..... Petitioner

Through

Mr.Vijay Aggarwal, Mr.Mudit

Jain,

Ms.Gossia

Shah,

Mr.Samprita Ghosal and Mr.

Dheeraj Gupta, Advocates

versus

STATE & ANR

..... Respondents

Through

Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP for the

State.

Ms.Sunita Hazarika, Ms.Ipsita

Behura and Mrs.Bulbul Das,

Advocates for R-2.

+

CRL.M.C. 1166/2010

ADITYA CHOPRA

..... Petitioner

Through

Mr.M.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate

versus

STATE & ANR

..... Respondents

Through

Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP for the

State.

2014:DHC:3702

W.P. (Crl) No.1775/2010 & Crl.M.C. No.1166/2010 Page 2 of 22

Ms.Sunita Hazarika, Ms.Ipsita

Behura and Mrs.Bulbul Das,

Advocates for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

1

The petitioners Ranbir S. Arora and Aditya Chopra seek quashing

of the complaint dated 03.10.2009 of which cognizance has been taken

under Sections 354/323/509/34 of the IPC. On 16.10.2010, summons

had been issued to the petitioners. On 03.09.2012, the matter was

referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Center

hoping that the parties could arrive at an amicable settlement but no

settlement could be arrived at. This was reported vide order dated

12.12.2012.

2

Record shows that a complaint was made by „KS‟ on 03.10.2009.

She was an airhostess and was on a flight IC-884 operating from Sharjah

to Delhi via Lucknow. Captain Ranbir Arora was the pilot and Aditya

Chopra was his co-pilot. As per the complaint, the complainant had

gone to wish the pilot and co-pilot as per protocol; they were

unprofessional and misbehaved with her. After taking-off, the captain

2014:DHC:3702

W.P. (Crl) No.1775/2010 & Crl.M.C. No.1166/2010 Page 3 of 22

called her inside; she was accompanied by Amit Khanna (cabin crew).

Captain Ranbir Arora used abusive language against her; the co-pilot

Aditya Chopra also got up from his seat and tried to hit Amit; to calm

the situation, the complainant and Amit walked out. On this Captain

Ranbir Arora pushed the complainant on her chest and again used

abusive language; her arm got bruised.

3

Arguments have been addressed.

4

As per the version of the petitioner Ranbir Arora, the FIR had

been registered on a complaint dated 03.10.2009 made at 01:30 pm; the

first complaint was lodged by the victim in the log book which she had

made between 07:30-08:00 am which did not reflect the contents of the

complaint. This FIR is belated and an improved version. The version of

the complainant is even otherwise contradictory. Cabin staff Amit

Khanna had given a contrary version in his statement under Section 161

of the Cr.PC on the role attributable to the petitioners; in one breath, he

had named the present petitioner but on an earlier occasion, he had

named the co-pilot. Such contrary versions being unexplained dent the

version of the prosecution and this is a fit case where the FIR should be

2014:DHC:3702

W.P. (Crl) No.1775/2010 & Crl.M.C. No.1166/2010 Page 4 of 22

quashed at the initial state itself as trial would serve no purpose and it

would be an exercise in futility. To support this proposition reliance has

been placed upon 2008 (2) JCC 1017 Budhan Singh & Ors. Vs. State;

submission being that where the statements made by the persons about

the incident at an earlier point of time did not reveal the involvement of

the petitioner, the FIR lodged later in time was clearly held to be

motivated and was thus liable to be quashed. The second argument

professed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Ranbir Arora

has been exonerated in the enquiry conducted by Vishaka Committee

(constituted after the judgment of the Apex C