2013 (5) TMI 1068 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the order dated 13.05.2011 and FIR No. 610/2007.
2. Validity of the cognizance taken by the learned ACMM.
3. Examination of evidence and statements, including DNA profiling and call details.
4. Allegations of conspiracy and false implication by the complainant.

Issue-wise Summary:

1. Quashing of the order dated 13.05.2011 and FIR No. 610/2007:
The petitioners sought to quash the order dated 13.05.2011 and FIR No. 610/2007 registered at PS-Malviya Nagar, Delhi. The High Court decided to dispose of all petitions by a common judgment due to the similarity of the issues involved.

2. Validity of the cognizance taken by the learned ACMM:
The learned ACMM took cognizance of the offence punishable u/s 376(g) IPC and summoned the petitioners u/s 204 Cr.P.C. The petitioners argued that the ACMM ignored the thorough investigation by the Special Investigation Team (Crime Branch), which found no evidence supporting the allegations. The investigation revealed inconsistencies in the complainant's statements and significant delays in filing the complaint, raising doubts about the veracity of the accusations.

3. Examination of evidence and statements, including DNA profiling and call details:
The investigation included recording statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C., medical examinations, collecting FSL reports, polygraph tests, DNA profiling, and examining call details. The Special Investigation Team concluded that the allegations were not substantiated by evidence. The complainant's refusal to provide blood samples for DNA profiling further weakened her case. The DNA tests did not support the complainant's version, and the call details indicated that the petitioners were not present at the alleged crime scene.

4. Allegations of conspiracy and false implication by the complainant:
The investigation suggested a conspiracy involving the complainant and her employer, Vijay Kataria, to falsely implicate the petitioners. The complainant's call records showed frequent communication with Kataria, contradicting her claims of not knowing him. The rented accommodation where the alleged incident occurred was taken under suspicious circumstances, and the complainant's financial capacity to afford it was questionable. The investigation also revealed that the complainant and Kataria used multiple mobile numbers to mislead the investigation.

Conclusion:
The High Court set aside the order dated 13.05.2011 passed by the learned ACMM, Saket Courts, New Delhi, and quashed FIR No. 610/2007 and the proceedings emanating therefrom. The Court found that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law and exercised its inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice.