X vs STATE & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:27.01.2025 + CRL.REV.P. 1203/2019 X .....Petitioner Through: versus STATE & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner :Ms. Sunita Arora, Advocate (DHCLSC) alongwith Petitioner-in-Person. For the Respondent : Mr. Naresh Chahar, APP for the State. Mr. Chirag Jamwal, Advocate (Through V.C.) with Mr. Ajit Amar & Mr. Akashdeep Kakkar, Advocates for Respondent No.2 to 5. SI Mukesh Kumari (P.S. R.K. Puram). CORAM HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN JUDGMENT 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, Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR CRL.REV.P. 1203/2019 Page 1 of 17 Signing Date:03.02.2025 16:59:34 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 pet