CRL.L.P. 817/2018

Page 1 of 3

$~3

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CRL.L.P. 817/2018

SMT. RITU @ SHIKHA KASHYAP

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar and Mr. Nitin

Sharma, Advocates.

versus

STATE & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Amit Gupta, APP for State with

W/SI Vinod Kapoor P.S. Vasant Vihar.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

O R D E R

%

11.12.2018

1.

The present criminal leave petition has been filed by the petitioner

against the judgment dated 09.10.2018, passed by learned ASJ in SC No.

9625/16, arising out of FIR No. 629/2016, P.S. Vasant Vihar registered

under Sections 376/506 IPC. Under the impugned judgment, after examining

the evidence brought on record, the learned ASJ has arrived at the

conclusion that the deposition of the petitioner/prosecutrix is insufficient to

hold that the accused had any malafide intentions of not marrying her or that

he had established a physical relationship with her on the false promise of

marrying her or that he had threatened to kill her. As a result, the respondent

No.2 has been acquitted of all the offences for which he had faced trial.

2.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the prosecutrix has filed the

present petition.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned judgment on

CRL.L.P. 817/2018

Page 2 of 3

the ground that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate that the

respondent No.2 had threatened the prosecutrix by making false promise to

marry her and by establishing a physical relationship with her without her

consent and wishes; that there was sufficient evidence on record to show

that the respondent No.2 had cheated and committed a fraud on the

petitioner and her deposition was sufficient to hold him guilty of the offence

for which he had been charged; that the trial court has placed unnecessary

reliance on the chats on Whatsapp, thereby overlooking the conduct of the

respondent No.2.

4.

On carefully perusing the impugned judgment and after hearing the

counsel for the petitioner, we are of the opinion that the trial court has not

committed any error in acquitting the respondent No.2. The printout of the

chats and the transcription of the telephonic conversation between the

petitioner and the respondent No.2 placed on record by the defence and duly

admitted by the petitioner during her cross examination amply demonstrate

that she had of her own free will and without any inducement from the

respondent No.2, consented for a physical relationship with him. Thereafter,

she had second thoughts about marrying him and had in fact told him that

she can get married to him only after her elder sister gets married. Later on,

the petitioner had threatened the respondent No.2 that she will defame him

and falsely implicate him.

5.

The fact that the petitioner had been threatening the respondent No.2

has clearly comes out in her cross examination. The telephonic

conversations supplied by the respondent No.2 to the IO were duly

transcribed by the forensic expert at Jaipur. During her cross examination,

the petitioner was confronted with the said transcription of the telephonic

CRL.L.P. 817/2018

Page 3 of 3

conversations and she had admitted that the same were true and correct. The

only explanation sought to be offered by her was that she had threatened the

respondent No.2 out of her anger, when she came to know that the

respondent No.2’s brother had informed her sister about the physical

relationship established between the parties and once her family members

came to know about it, she felt ashamed.

6.

The trial court has also highlighted the fact that there was not a single

instance where the respondent No.2 had extended any threats or demanded

any dowry from the peti