IN THE MATTER OF:-
Petitioner's name: PETITIONER
VERSUS
**Respondents' names: RESPONDENTS**
INDEX
| SR. NO. | PARTICULARS | PAGE NO. |
| 5. | Synopsis and List of Dates and Events | |
| 6. | Crl. Misc. Main Petition on behalf of the Petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 CrPC, along with affidavit in support | |
| 7. | Annexure P-1: Copy of the impugned order dated Impugned order date passed by the Ld. Sessions Judge, Sessions court name, in Crl. Rev. No. Criminal revision number | |
| 8. | Annexure P-2: Copy of the legal notice dated Legal notice date sent by the Petitioner to Respondent No. 2 | |
| 9. | Annexure P-3: Copy of FIR bearing No. FIR number under Sections 354A/354D IPC, P.S.: Police station name | |
| 10. | Annexure P-4: Copy of the relevant excerpt of the charge-sheet in FIR No. FIR number | |
| 11. | Annexure P-5 (colly.): Copy of the relevant excerpt of the supplementary charge-sheet, along with the call record and the FSL report | |
| 12. | Annexure P-6: Copy of the Ld. Trial Court's order dated Trial court order date | |
| 13. | Annexure P-7: Copy of Crl. Revision Petition bearing No. Revision petition number filed by the Petitioner before the Ld. Appellate Court | |
| 14. | Crl. M. App. No. Crl. M. App. number of 2023: Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for exemption from filing original/certified copies and for taking legible copies of the documents on record as deemed copies, along with affidavit | |
| 15. | Crl. M. App. No. Crl. M. App. number of 2023: Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for stay of proceedings, along with affidavit | |
Drawn & Filed by:
Place: New Delhi
Dated:
Law firm name
ADVOCATES AND LEGAL CONSULTANTS
Law firm address
PHONE: Law firm phone number
EMAIL: Law firm email
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL. MISC. MAIN NO. Petition number OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Petitioner's name: PETITIONER
VERSUS
Respondents' names: RESPONDENTS
NOTICE OF MOTION
To
The State (NCT of Delhi)
Sir,
This is to inform you that a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 CrPC is being filed by us in the Registry of the Hon'ble High Court. Please receive a copy of the said Petition. The petition is likely to come up for hearing before the Hon'ble High Court on Date of hearing before High Court or any date thereafter, on which date you may kindly remain present in the Hon'ble Court to assist the Court.
Drawn & Filed by:
Place: New Delhi
Dated:
Law firm name
ADVOCATES AND LEGAL CONSULTANTS
Law firm address
PHONE: Law firm phone number
EMAIL: Law firm email
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL. MISC. MAIN NO. Petition number OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Petitioner's name: PETITIONER
VERSUS
Respondents' names: RESPONDENTS
URGENT APPLICATION
To,
The Hon'ble Registrar
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
New Delhi
Sir,
Will you kindly treat the accompanying Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 CrPC as an urgent matter in accordance with the High Court Rules and Orders. The grounds of urgency are set out in the accompanying Petition.
Yours faithfully,
Drawn & Filed by:
Place: New Delhi
Dated:
Law firm name
ADVOCATES AND LEGAL CONSULTANTS
Law firm address
PHONE: Law firm phone number
EMAIL: Law firm email
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL. MISC. MAIN NO. Petition number OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Petitioner's name: PETITIONER
VERSUS
Respondents' names: RESPONDENTS
MEMO OF PARTIES
Petitioner's name
Add: Petitioner's address: PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Respondent no. 1's name
2. Respondent no. 2's name
Respondents' address: RESPONDENTS
Drawn & Filed by:
Place: New Delhi
Dated:
Law firm name
ADVOCATES AND LEGAL CONSULTANTS
Law firm address
PHONE: Law firm phone number
EMAIL: Law firm email
SYNOPSIS
The Petitioner is constrained to impugn the order dated Impugned order date passed by the Ld. Sessions Judge, Sessions court name, in Crl. Revision No. Criminal revision number, to the extent of its directions retaining the charge under Sections 354/354A IPC framed by the Ld. Trial Court, Trial court judge's name, in FIR No. FIR number registered at P.S.: Police station name, in the case titled "Complainant's name v. Petitioner's name", against the Petitioner, vide the impugned order.
That the Ld. Sessions Court, vide the impugned order, was pleased to accept the submissions of the Petitioner in part and, by the said order of even date, was pleased to modify the Ld. Trial Court's order by directing deletion of the charge under Section 354D IPC. However, the Ld. Sessions Court, vide the impugned order, wholly erred in retaining the charge under Sections 354/354A IPC against the Petitioner and in directing continuance of the trial against the Petitioner, which has resulted in grave injustice and harassment to the Petitioner.
That a bare perusal of the charge-sheet makes it evident that the erroneous continuance of the trial pertains to a 'single alleged incident on Date of alleged incident'. In the conspectus of the facts alleged in the FIR, and in light of the material information and evidence collected and filed along with the charge-sheet before the Ld. Trial Court, the ingredients of Sections 354/354A IPC are wholly not attracted, and the legal proceedings against the Petitioner deserve to be brought to a quietus. The impugned order is manifestly erroneous and arbitrary and deserves to be set aside on the following ground:
A. THAT A BARE READING OF THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE FIR QUO 'THE ALLEGED SOLE INCIDENT DATED Date of alleged incident' WOULD CATEGORICALLY SHOW THAT NO CASE WHATSOEVER UNDER SECTIONS 354/354A IPC IS MADE OUT AGAINST THE PETITIONER:
The relevant excerpt from the FIR is extracted herein:
"Extract of the allegation quoted from the FIR"
A logical reading of the said extracted content, in light of the materials on record with the charge-sheet, would establish that no case whatsoever is made out against the Petitioner. The crucial pointers include:
i.That Respondent No. 2 herself used the word "again", which fortifies the narrative that, by her own admission, even in the past the Petitioner had got pictures clicked with Respondent No. 2. In any event, if pictures have been clicked in the past, the same cannot be termed as 'unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures'. It is further submitted that, on a perusal of the pictures filed by the Petitioner along with the present petition, it is evident that on all previous occasions when the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 met for consultation and had pictures clicked together, the conduct of the Petitioner was decent and chivalrous, and Respondent No. 2 appears happy and at ease in the company of the Petitioner, with not a single sign of hesitation or discomfort apparent on the face of the record. Thus, it is apparent on its face that the FIR is a false and concocted story, and that there was no reason, motive or occasion for the Petitioner to commit any act involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures, as alleged, in a single isolated incident of Date of alleged incident.
ii.It is further an admitted position in the narrative of Respondent No. 2 that the alleged physical act was solely for the purpose of clicking a photograph. Admittedly, no allegation of sexual overtures in connection with the said act is substantiated, and the continuance of the present proceedings would therefore be against the interests of justice.
iii.It is further an admitted position that Respondent No. 2 never objected to the Petitioner clicking a photograph with her, nor is it the case of the prosecution that any force was used to click the photograph without her consent. It can, therefore, safely be inferred that the alleged physical contact and advances — which constitute an essential ingredient of Section 354A(1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code — were made with the consent and approval of Respondent No. 2.
iv.Without prejudice to the foregoing, even if the false and bald allegations of Respondent No. 2 are taken to be gospel truth, the act of putting an arm around a person to click a photograph, even by the farthest stretch of imagination, does not demonstrate any mala fide intention to outrage the modesty of a woman, nor can it be considered an advance involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures, particularly when the person concerned (Respondent No. 2) was known and familiar to the Petitioner, with whom several photographs had been clicked in the past and with whom the Petitioner shared a cordial relationship.
Thus, even on the basis of the allegations levelled against the Petitioner, it can safely be inferred that none of the ingredients of Sections 354 or 354A of the Indian Penal Code is attracted to the alleged incident, and consequently no case is made out against the Petitioner.
B.THE ACT OF RESPONDENT NO. 2, HERSELF OR THROUGH HER OFFICE STAFF, IN CALLING THE PETITIONER AROUND 76 TIMES DURING THE PERIOD Start date of call period TO End date of call period IS A TESTAMENT TO THE FACT THAT THE NARRATIVE IN THE FIR IS NOT ONLY FALSE BUT AN AFTERTHOUGHT, CONCOCTED TO SETTLE SCORES WITH THE PETITIONER:
Respondent No. 2, herself or through her office staff, called the Petitioner a total of 76 times. It is an admitted position, borne out by the call records filed along with the charge sheet, that Respondent No. 2 called the Petitioner as many as 76 times, out of which the Petitioner answered only 49 calls. All these calls were made during the intervening period between the date of the alleged incident, i.e., between Start date of call period and FIR filing date, the date on which the FIR was filed. This conduct itself renders the allegations of Respondent No. 2 false and concocted.
C. THE FIR WAS FILED AFTER A DELAY OF 61 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED INCIDENT
It is pertinent to note that Respondent No. 2 is a well-qualified and established doctor and was fully aware of her rights. Admittedly, no complaint, FIR or PCR call was made immediately after the alleged incident dated Date of alleged incident, nor was there any email, message or other correspondence from Respondent No. 2 or her office regarding the said alleged incident, nor even any warning issued to the Petitioner. It is pertinent to note that the complaint was filed only on Complaint filing date, long after the alleged incident. The narrative set forth by Respondent No. 2 is false and concocted and is an afterthought/counterblast, since the Petitioner had issued a notice to Respondent No. 2 regarding the deficiency of services rendered by her and had further sought compensation for the said deficiency of service.
D.THE ACT OF RESPONDENT NO. 2 IN CALLING THE PETITIONER FROM HER OWN MOBILE NUMBER OR FROM THE MOBILE NUMBER OF HER OFFICE STAFF IN THE WEE HOURS OF Date of late-night call, I.E., AT Time of late-night call AM, THAT TOO JUST ONE (1) DAY AFTER THE ALLEGED INCIDENT, PUNCTURES THE VEIL OF THE FIR:
On Date of late-night call itself, i.e., one day after the alleged incident, Respondent No. 2 called the Petitioner at Time of late-night call from her mobile number Complainant's mobile number. Such a call, made immediately after one (1) day of the alleged incident and at such an odd hour, speaks volumes about the self-serving nature of the allegations and their untenability, as alleged in the FIR.
E. THE ACT OF RESPONDENT NO. 2 IN SENDING A PLEASANT MESSAGE TO THE PETITIONER IMMEDIATELY ON Date of pleasant message, I.E., TWO DAYS AFTER THE ALLEGED INCIDENT, IS FURTHER A TESTAMENT TO THE FACT THAT NO SUCH INCIDENT COULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE:
That on Date of pleasant message, Respondent No. 2 sent the following message to the Petitioner:
“Good morning. Have a cheerful day.”
It is wholly untenable that if the alleged incident set out in the FIR had in fact occurred on Date of alleged incident, Respondent No. 2 would send such greetings to the Petitioner two days thereafter, on Date of pleasant message. Such evident and self-speaking facts and evidence do not require trial and are by themselves sufficient to demolish the false narrative sought to be painted by Respondent No. 2.
F.THE FSL REPORT FURTHER CATEGORICALLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY EXONERATES THE PETITIONER FROM THE ALLEGATIONS LEVELLED IN THE FIR:
That it is an admitted position that, even upon scrutiny of the Petitioner's mobile phone by the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), no obscene material or chats were found so as to fasten liability under the Indian Penal Code. Such a crucial piece of evidence, collected by the prosecution itself, has been ignored by the Learned Sessions Court. It is pertinent to note that, in order to falsely implicate the Petitioner and further to extort money from him and to save herself from paying compensation to the Petitioner for the deficiency of service, Respondent No. 2 falsely claimed that several photographs of hers were stored on the Petitioner's mobile phone. The said allegation does not stand on its own footing in view of the FSL report regarding the contents of the Petitioner's mobile phone.
G. AS PER COLUMN 13 OF THE CHARGESHEET, THE ONLY MATERIAL WITNESS IS RESPONDENT NO. 2 HERSELF, I.E., THE COMPLAINANT:
It is trite to note that none of the staff members of Respondent No. 2 has confirmed the occurrence of the alleged incident, and no proof or evidence in the form of a photograph or CCTV footage of the said alleged incident has been placed on record along with the charge sheet. It is submitted that the fact that none of the staff members of Respondent No. 2 confirmed or established the false narrative of Respondent No. 2 speaks volumes as to the genuineness and authenticity of her claims.
It is further submitted that the courts below have failed to appreciate that there is no supporting proof, substantial evidence or statement of any material witness to establish the claims of Respondent No. 2, and on this count alone the Learned Trial Court ought to have exonerated the Petitioner from this false case, which has been instituted to harass the Petitioner and is nothing but an arm-twisting tactic of Respondent No. 2 to save herself from her liability to pay compensation for the deficiency of services rendered by her.
LIST OF DATES:-
Nov. Year of first clinic visitThat on/around Date of first clinic contact, the Petitioner was approached by the clinic of Respondent No. 2, which enticed him to register for their tummy tuck and face-lifting programme, and on/around Date of first clinic visit, the Petitioner visited the clinic and consulted Respondent No. 2 after paying the requisite consultation fee.
List of dates serial numberThat, having been enamoured by the false and pretentious representations of the clinic, the Petitioner underwent the liposuction surgery and paid INR Liposuction surgery amount (₹)/- [Date of receipt], for which a receipt was issued to the Petitioner.
List of dates serial number to
List of dates serial numberThe Petitioner was regularly called for consultations almost every week and was required to pay INR Consultation fee per visit (₹) for every visit. It is pertinent to note that, despite spending a substantial amount, the Petitioner did not obtain the desired relief. Thereafter, the Petitioner was further enticed to undergo an advanced procedure, for which he was asked to spend approximately INR Estimated cost of advanced procedure (₹).
List of dates serial numberThat, enticed and lured by vivid representations of the fulfilment of the desired results, the Petitioner further underwent an advanced surgical procedure and paid a further sum of INR Advanced procedure amount (₹) on Date of advanced procedure. Thereafter, under the guise of post-operative care and procedures, the Petitioner was again called for frequent visits and was further compelled to spend INR Post-operative care amount (₹) (approx.) on post-operative care, along with INR Consultation fee per visit (₹)/- as consultation fee for every visit.
List of dates serial numberThat on Date of gynecomastia consultation, the Petitioner was further enticed to undergo treatment for Gynecomastia/‘Male Breasts’-related issues. The Petitioner visited the Clinic and again consulted Respondent No. 2, who gave an estimate of INR Gynecomastia treatment estimate (₹) for the said medical treatment. Admittedly, the Petitioner declined the treatment, which did not go down well with Respondent No. 2. The Petitioner further reiterated his complaint that the earlier ‘liposuction procedures’, on which he had already spent more than INR Total amount spent on liposuction (₹), had also not yielded the desired results. Accordingly, the Petitioner declined to undergo any further medical procedure, which would have involved a further investment of Gynecomastia treatment cost (₹). This, for obvious financial reasons, displeased Respondent No. 2.
List of dates serial numberThat on/around Date of continued consultations, the Petitioner had been in constant touch with and regularly conversing with Respondent No. 2. In fact, in the conversation duly recorded in the charge sheet, the Petitioner again complained about the persisting ‘swelling’ on his face and abdomen, and also enquired about obtaining a receipt for the payment of INR Receipt amount (₹) made way back in Month of payment, Year of payment, as the same was required for audit purposes. In response, Respondent No. 2 stated that it would take a period of Period stated for the swelling to settle before the swelling settled. Admittedly, the demand for a cash receipt of INR Cash receipt amount (₹) discomforted Respondent No. 2.
List of dates serial numberIt is an admitted position that even up to Date till which swelling persisted, the swelling and discomfort arising out of the re-constructive surgeries undergone by the Petitioner at the clinic of Respondent No. 2 did not subside, and despite the Petitioner’s attempts to amicably resolve the issues, he did not receive any encouraging response from Respondent No. 2 or her clinic.
List of dates serial numberThat, left with no other option, the Petitioner sent a legal notice dated Legal notice date to Respondent No. 2 claiming damages to the tune of INR Damages amount claimed (₹), as neither the pain nor the swelling resulting from the surgical procedures appeared to be subsiding.
List of dates serial numberThat, as a counterblast to the legal notice, Respondent No. 2, in a nefarious manner and in order to exert pressure upon the Petitioner, lodged the present FIR. The version put forth by Respondent No. 2 stands falsified by her subsequent conduct, which is explained hereinunder:
•It is an admitted position that, within a span of less than Span of calls (number) Span of calls (unit), Respondent No. 2 called the Petitioner more than Number of times Respondent No. 2 called the Petitioner times, either from her own number or through the numbers of her staff members.
List of dates serial numberThat on/around Chargesheet filing date, the charge sheet was filed before the Ld. Trial Court.
List of dates serial numberThat on/around Supplementary chargesheet filing date, the supplementary charge sheet was filed and the FSL report concerning the Petitioner’s mobile phone was brought on record. The FSL report categorically and unequivocally exonerates the Petitioner from the allegations levelled in the FIR.
List of dates serial numberThat on Date of charge framing, vide an arbitrary and unreasonable order dated Charge framing order date, the Ld. Trial Court framed charges against the Petitioner under Sections 354A(1)(i), 354A(1)(iv) and 354D IPC. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the charge sheet holistically, and further failed to appreciate the significance of the conduct of Respondent No. 2, in the form of calls and messages, made immediately after the date of the alleged incident. Furthermore, the Court failed to appreciate that even on a bare perusal of the FIR, no ingredients of the alleged offences are made out. Further, even the written submissions filed by the Petitioner were not taken into consideration by the Ld. Trial Court.
List of dates serial numberThat, on/around Revision petition filing date, the Petitioner preferred a Revision Petition, bearing number Revision petition number, before the District and Sessions Court, Saket Courts, New Delhi, impugning the order of the Ld. Trial Court and inter alia highlighting the following shortcomings of the said order:
a.Non-consideration of, and non-application of mind to, the substantive contents of the charge sheet;
b.Non-consideration of the call records and the admitted social media conversations for the period Time period of social media conversations, which squarely establish that the FIR is an afterthought and was lodged to intimidate the Petitioner from pursuing his claim for damages as conveyed through the legal notice dated Legal notice date;
c.Non-consideration of the evidence procured and brought on record by the Prosecution.
List of dates serial numberThat, vide order dated Sessions court order date, the Ld. Sessions Court was pleased to accept the submissions in part and, vide the order of the even date, was pleased to modify the order of the Ld. Trial Court by directing deletion of the charge under Section 354D IPC. However, with respect to the remaining sections, the Ld. Sessions Court erred in directing the continuance of the trial.
List of dates serial numberHence, the present Petition.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL. MISC. MAIN NO. Petition number OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Petitioner's name
Petitioner's address: PETITIONER
VERSUS
Respondents' names
Address: Respondents' address: RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL MISC. MAIN PETITION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 CrPC AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED Impugned order date PASSED BY THE LD. APPELLATE COURT OF SH. Additional Sessions Judge's name, LD. ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, SOUTH DIST., SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI, IN CRL. REVISION NO. Criminal revision number IN A CASE TITLED “Petitioner's name VS STATE”.
TO,
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-
1.That the present Petition has been filed by the Petitioner, who is constrained to approach this Hon’ble Court against the impugned order dated Impugned order date passed by the Ld. Appellate Court of Sh. Additional Sessions Judge's name, Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, South Dist., Saket Courts, New Delhi, in Crl. Revision No. Criminal revision number in a case titled “Complainant's name Vs Petitioner's name” (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”), whereby the Ld. Appellate Court, to the extent of its directions, retained the charges under Sections 354/354A IPC in FIR No. FIR number, P.S. Saket, against the Petitioner.
A copy of the impugned order dated Impugned order date passed by the Ld. Appellate Court is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-1.
2.That the Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Ld. Appellate Court, which is devoid of merits and has been passed in an arbitrary and prejudiced manner, as the Ld. Trial Court had failed to appreciate the submissions of the Petitioner. Nevertheless, the Ld. Appellate Court passed the impugned order without applying its judicial mind and without due regard to the law laid down by various Hon’ble Courts.
3.That the brief factual narrative essential for the present petition is set out hereunder:
3.1That on or around Date of first clinic contact, the Petitioner was approached by the clinic of Respondent No.2, which enticed him to enrol in its tummy tuck and face lifting programme. On or around Date of first clinic visit, the Petitioner visited the Clinic and consulted Respondent No.2 after paying the requisite consultation fee.
3.2That, induced by the false and pretentious representations of the Respondents, the Petitioner underwent the Liposuction Surgery and paid INR Liposuction surgery amount (₹)/- [Receipt No. Receipt number], for which a receipt was duly issued to the Petitioner.
3.3That the Petitioner was regularly called for consultations almost every week and was required to pay INR Consultation fee per visit (₹) for every visit. It is pertinent to note that despite spending a substantial amount, the Petitioner did not obtain the desired relief. Thereafter, the Petitioner was further enticed to undergo an advanced procedure, for which he was asked to spend approximately Estimated cost of advanced procedure (₹).
3.5That, enticed and lured by vivid representations regarding the fulfilment of the desired results, the Petitioner underwent the advanced surgical procedure and paid a further sum of INR Advanced procedure amount (₹) on Date of advanced procedure. Thereafter, under the guise of post-operative care and procedures, the Petitioner was again called for frequent visits and was compelled to spend INR Post-operative care amount (₹) towards post-operative care, in addition to INR Consultation fee per visit (₹)/- as consultation fee for every visit.
3.6That on Date of gynecomastia consultation, the Petitioner was further enticed to undergo treatment for Gynecomastia / 'male breast related' issues. The Petitioner visited the Clinic and again consulted Respondent No.2. The Petitioner was given an estimate of INR Gynecomastia treatment estimate (₹) for the said medical treatment. Admittedly, the Petitioner refused the said treatment, which did not go down well with Respondent No.2. The Petitioner reiterated his complaint that the earlier 'liposuction procedures', for which he had already spent more than INR Total amount spent on liposuction (₹), had also not yielded the desired results. Accordingly, the Petitioner declined the further medical procedure, which would have involved a further investment of INR Gynecomastia treatment cost (₹). This, for obvious financial reasons, displeased Respondent No.2.
3.7That on and around Date of continued consultations, the Petitioner remained in constant touch with and regularly conversed with Respondent No.2. In fact, in the conversation duly recorded in the charge sheet, the Petitioner once again complained of the persisting 'swelling' on his face and abdomen, and also sought a receipt for the payment of INR Receipt amount (₹) made as far back as Date of receipt payment made by petitioner, as the said receipts were required for audit purposes. In response, Respondent No.2 stated that it would take Recovery period stated by respondent before the swelling subsided. Admittedly, the demand for a cash receipt for INR Cash receipt amount (₹) discomforted Respondent No.2. It is an admitted position that even up to Date till which swelling persisted, the swelling and discomfort arising from the reconstructive surgeries undergone by the Petitioner at the clinic of Respondent No.2 did not abate, and despite the Petitioner's attempts to amicably resolve the issues, he did not receive any encouraging response from Respondent No.2 or her clinic.
3.8That, left with no other option, the Petitioner issued a legal notice dated Legal notice date to Respondent No.2, claiming damages to the tune of INR Damages amount claimed (₹), as neither the pain nor the swelling resulting from the surgical procedures appeared to be subsiding.
The copy of the Legal Notice dated Legal notice date is attached hereto as Annexure P-2.
3.9That, as a counterblast to the Legal Notice, Respondent No.2, in a nefarious manner and in order to exert pressure upon the Petitioner, filed the present FIR. The narrative put forth by Respondent No.2 stands falsified by her own subsequent conduct, which is explained hereunder:
The copy of the FIR bearing FIR number under Sections 354A/354D of the IPC, P.S.: Saket, is attached hereto as Annexure P-3.
It is an admitted position that during a span of less than two months, i.e., from Start date of call period, Respondent No.2 called the Petitioner more than Number of calls made by respondent to petitioner times, either from her own phone number or from the phone numbers of her staff members. The crucial details pertaining to the said incoming calls to the Petitioner inter alia include:
a.The act of Respondent No.2 herself calling the Petitioner approximately Number of calls made by respondent to petitioner times during the period Start date of call period to End date of call period is a testament to the fact that the narrative set out in the FIR is an afterthought, conceived to settle scores with the Petitioner:
Respondent No.2 called the Petitioner a total of Number of calls made by respondent to petitioner times, either from her own phone number or from the phone numbers of her staff members. It is an admitted position, borne out by the call records filed along with the charge sheet, that Respondent No.2 called the Petitioner as many as Number of calls made by respondent to petitioner times, of which the Petitioner answered only Number of calls answered by petitioner calls. All of this occurred during the intervening period between the date of the alleged incident, i.e., between Start date of call period and FIR filing date, when the FIR was filed.
b.The act of Respondent No.2 in sending a pleasant message to the Petitioner immediately on Date of pleasant message, i.e., two days after the alleged incident, is also a testament to the fact that no such incident could have taken place:
That on Date of pleasant message, Respondent No.2 sent the following message to the Petitioner:
"Good morning. Have a cheerful day."
It is wholly untenable that if the alleged incident, as enumerated in the FIR, had in fact occurred on Date of alleged incident, Respondent No.2 would have sent such greetings to the Petitioner two days later, on Date of pleasant message. Such evident and self-speaking facts and evidence do not require trial and are sufficient to demolish the false narrative sought to be painted by Respondent No.2.
c.The act of Respondent No.2 herself calling the Petitioner in the wee hours of Date of late-night call, i.e., at Time of late-night call, and that too just one (1) day after the alleged incident, punctures the very foundation of the FIR:
That on Date of late-night call itself, i.e., a day after the alleged incident, Respondent No.2 called the Petitioner at Time of late-night call from her mobile number Complainant's mobile number. Once again, such a call, made immediately after one (1) day of the incident and at such an odd hour, speaks volumes as to the self-serving and untenable nature of the allegations made in the FIR.
3.10 That on or around Chargesheet filing date, the charge sheet was filed before the Ld. Trial Court.
The copy of the relevant extract of the charge sheet is attached hereto as Annexure P-4.
3.11 That on or around the date thereof, the supplementary charge sheet was filed and the FSL report qua the Petitioner's mobile phone was brought on record. The FSL report categorically and unequivocally exonerates the Petitioner from the allegations levelled in the FIR.
The copy of the relevant extract of the supplementary charge sheet, along with the call records and the FSL report, is attached hereto as Annexure P-5Annexure notation.
3.11 That on Date of charge framing, vide an arbitrary and unreasonable order dated Charge framing order date, the Ld. Trial Court framed charges against the Petitioner under Section 354A(1)(i), Section 354A(1)(iv) and Section 354D of the IPC. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the charge sheet holistically and further failed to fathom the significance of the conduct of Respondent No.2, in the form of calls and messages, and that too immediately after the date of the alleged incident. Furthermore, the Court failed to appreciate that even a bare perusal of the FIR does not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. Furthermore, the written submissions filed by the Petitioner were also not taken into consideration by the Ld. Trial Court.
The copy of the Ld. Trial Court's Order dated Trial court order date is attached hereto as Annexure P-6.
4.That a Revision Petition being Revision petition number was preferred by the Petitioner on/around Revision petition filing date before the District and Sessions Court, Saket Courts, New Delhi, impugning the Ld. Trial Court's Order and, inter alia, highlighting the shortcomings of the said Order, which are as follows:
a.Non-consideration of, and non-application of mind to, the substantive contents of the charge-sheet.
b.Non-consideration of the call records and the admitted social media conversations for the time period Time period of social media conversations, which squarely establish that the FIR is an afterthought and was lodged to intimidate the Petitioner from pursuing his claim for damages, as conveyed through the legal notice dated Legal notice date.
c.Non-consideration of the evidence procured and brought on record by the Prosecution.
The copy of the Revision Petition bearing No. Revision petition number filed by the Petitioner is attached hereto as Annexure P-7.
5.That the Ld. Sessions Court, vide order dated Sessions court order date, was pleased to accept the submissions in part and, vide order of even date, was pleased to modify the Ld. Trial Court's Order by directing deletion of the charge under Section 354D, IPC. However, in respect of the remaining Sections, the Ld. Sessions Court erred in directing the continuance of the Trial. The Impugned Order is manifestly erroneous and arbitrary, and deserves to be set aside on the following grounds, inter alia, as under:
GROUNDS:-
A.THAT A BARE READING OF THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE FIR, QUA 'THE ALLEGED SOLE INCIDENT DATED Date of alleged incident', WOULD CATEGORICALLY SHOW THAT NO CASE WHATSOEVER UNDER SECTION 354/354A IS MADE OUT AGAINST THE PETITIONER:
The relevant excerpt from the FIR is extracted herein:
"On Date of alleged incident, Petitioner's name "*again demanded that I get a picture clicked with him; he came very close to me and put his arms around me for clicking the picture. I immediately pushed him, and I scolded him."*
A logical reading of the said extracted content, in light of the materials on record along with the charge-sheet, would establish that no case whatsoever is made out against the Petitioner. The crucial pointers include:
i.That Respondent No. 2 herself used the word "again", which fortifies the narrative that, by her own admission, the Petitioner had on earlier occasions also got pictures clicked with Respondent No. 2. In any event, if pictures have been clicked in the past, the same cannot be termed as 'unwelcome' and 'explicit sexual overtures'. It is further submitted that, on a perusal of the pictures filed by the Petitioner along with the present petition, it is evident that on all previous occasions when the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 met for consultation and got pictures clicked together, the conduct of the Petitioner was decent and chivalrous; further, Respondent No. 2 appears happy and comfortable in the company of the Petitioner, and there is not a single sign of hesitation or discomfort apparent on her face. Thus, it is apparent on the face of the record that the FIR is a false and concocted story, and that there was no reason, motive or occasion for the Petitioner to commit an act involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures, as alleged, in a single isolated incident of Date of alleged incident.
ii.Furthermore, it is an admitted position in the narrative of Respondent No. 2 that the physical act so alleged was for the purpose of clicking a picture only. Admittedly, no allegation of sexual overtures pertaining to the said act is substantiated, and thus the continuance of the case would be against the interest of justice.
iii.Further, it is an admitted stand that Respondent No. 2 never objected to the Petitioner clicking a picture with her, nor is it a case that force was used to click the picture without the consent of Respondent No. 2. Thus, it can safely be presumed that the physical contact and advances — which are an essential ingredient of Section 354A(1)(i) — were made with the consent and approval of Respondent No. 2.
iv.Without prejudice, even if the false and bald allegations of Respondent No. 2 were to be accepted as gospel truth, even in that case, putting an arm around a person to click a picture would not, by any stretch of imagination, evince any mala fide intention to outrage the modesty of a woman, or, for that matter, amount to advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures, especially when the person concerned (Respondent No. 2) is a known and familiar person, with whom many pictures have been clicked in the past and with whom there was otherwise a healthy conversation.
Thus, even on the basis of the allegations levelled against the Petitioner, it can safely be presumed that none of the ingredients of Section 354 or 354A is present in the said alleged incident, and therefore no case is made out against the Petitioner.
B.THAT RESPONDENT NO. 2'S ACT, HERSELF OR THROUGH HER OFFICE STAFF, OF CALLING THE PETITIONER AROUND 76 TIMES DURING THE PERIOD Start date of call period TILL End date of call period IS A TESTAMENT TO THE FACT THAT THE NARRATIVE PAINTED IN THE FIR IS NOT ONLY FALSE BUT ALSO AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND A MEANS TO SETTLE SCORES WITH THE PETITIONER:
Respondent No. 2 (herself or through her staff) had called the Petitioner a total of 76 times. It is an admitted position, based on the call records filed along with the charge-sheet, that Respondent No. 2 called the Petitioner as many as 76 times, out of which the Petitioner responded to only 49 calls. All this occurred in the intervening period between the date of the alleged incident, i.e., between Start date of call period and FIR filing date, when the FIR was filed. The said conduct itself renders the allegations of Respondent No. 2 false and concocted.
C. THE FIR WAS FILED AFTER A DELAY OF 61 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED INCIDENT
It is pertinent to note that Respondent No. 2 is a well-qualified and established doctor and was fully aware of her rights. Admittedly, no complaint, FIR or PCR call was made immediately after the alleged event of Date of alleged incident, nor was there any email, message or any other conversation or correspondence on the part of Respondent No. 2 or her office regarding the said alleged event, nor even any warning issued to the Petitioner. It is to be noted that the Complaint was filed on Complaint filing date, long after the alleged event. It is a false and concocted narrative being put forth by Respondent No. 2 as an afterthought and counterblast, as the Petitioner had issued a legal notice to Respondent No. 2 qua the deficiency of services being provided by her, and had further sought compensation for the said deficiency of service.
D.THAT RESPONDENT NO. 2'S ACT, HERSELF OR THROUGH HER OFFICE STAFF, OF CALLING THE PETITIONER FROM HER PHONE NUMBER IN THE WEE HOURS OF Date of late-night call, I.E., AT Time of late-night call AM, AND THAT TOO JUST ONE (1) DAY AFTER THE ALLEGED INCIDENT, PUNCTURES THE VEIL OF THE FIR:
Respondent No. 2, on Date of late-night call itself, i.e., one day after the alleged incident, called the Petitioner at Time of late-night call from her mobile number Complainant's mobile number. Such a call, made immediately within one (1) day of the incident and at such an odd hour, speaks volumes about the self-serving nature of the allegations and their untenability, as alleged in the FIR.
E. RESPONDENT NO. 2'S ACT OF SENDING A PLEASANT MESSAGE TO THE PETITIONER IMMEDIATELY ON Date of pleasant message, I.E., AFTER 2 DAYS OF THE ALLEGED INCIDENT, IS ALSO A TESTAMENT TO THE FACT THAT NO SUCH INCIDENT COULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE:
That on Date of pleasant message, Respondent No. 2 sent a message-
“Good morning. Have a cheerful day” to the Petitioner.
It is quite untenable that if the alleged incident enumerated in the FIR had occurred on Date of alleged incident, it is incomprehensible as to why Respondent No. 2 would send such greetings to the Petitioner two days thereafter, on Date of pleasant message. Such evident and self-speaking facts and evidence do not require trial and are sufficient to demolish the false narrative sought to be painted by Respondent No. 2.
F.THE FSL REPORT FURTHER CATEGORICALLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY EXONERATES THE PETITIONER FROM THE ALLEGATIONS LEVELLED IN THE FIR:
That, it is an admitted position that even pursuant to the scrutiny of the Petitioner's mobile phone by the FSL, no obscene material or chats have been found so as to fasten liability under the Penal Code. Such a crucial piece of evidence collected by the Prosecution itself has been ignored by the Ld. Sessions Court. It is pertinent to note that, in order to falsely implicate the Petitioner, to further extort money from him, and to save herself from paying compensation to the Petitioner qua the deficiency of service, Respondent No. 2 had falsely claimed that there were various pictures of Respondent No. 2 in the Petitioner's phone. The said allegation does not stand on its own footing after the report of the FSL qua the contents of the mobile phone of the Petitioner.
G.THAT AS PER COLUMN 13 OF THE CHARGESHEET, THE ONLY MATERIAL WITNESS IS RESPONDENT NO. 2, I.E. THE COMPLAINANT HERSELF.
It is trite to mention that none of the staff of Respondent No. 2 has confirmed the happening of the alleged incident, and neither any proof nor evidence in the form of a picture or CCTV footage of the said alleged incident has been filed on record along with the chargesheet. It is submitted that the fact that none of the staff of Respondent No. 2 confirmed or established the false narrative of Respondent No. 2 speaks volumes about the genuineness and authenticity of the claims of Respondent No. 2.
It is further submitted that the courts below have failed to appreciate that there is no supporting proof, substantial evidence, or statement of any material witness to prove the claims of Respondent No. 2, and on this count alone the Ld. Trial Court ought to have exonerated the Petitioner from this false case, which has been made to harass the Petitioner and is nothing but an arm-twisting tactic of Respondent No. 2 to save herself from her liability of compensation qua the deficiency of services provided by her.
6.That the Petitioner submits that she has no other equal or efficacious remedy other than to approach this Hon'ble Court by way of the present petition.
7.That it is submitted that the Petitioner has not filed any other petition against the impugned order dated Impugned order date passed by the Ld. Appellate Court.
8.That the Petitioner is approaching this Hon'ble Court without any delay on its part, and the petition is within the period of limitation.
PRAYER:-
In the light of the above-mentioned submissions, it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
(i)Allow the present petition and set aside the impugned order dated Impugned order date passed by the Ld. Appellate Court of Additional Sessions Judge's name, Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, South Dist., Saket Courts, New Delhi, in Crl. Revision No. Criminal revision number in a case titled as "Petitioner's name Vs State".
(ii)Call for the Ld. Trial Court record of the Ld. M.M. (Mahila Court), South Dist., Saket Courts Complex, New Delhi, in FIR No. FIR number under Sections 354A/354D of IPC, P.S.: Saket, in a case titled as "Complainant's name Vs Petitioner's name".
(iii)Pass any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in favour of the Petitioner.
PETITIONER
Place: New Delhi
DatedTHROUGH
Law firm name
ADVOCATES AND LEGAL CONSULTANTS
Law firm address,
NEW DELHI-110014.
PHONE: Law firm phone number
EMAIL: Law firm email
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL. MISC. MAIN NO.Petition number OF 2023.
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Petitioner's name: PETITIONER
VERSUS
Respondents' names: RESPONDENTS
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Mr. Deponent's name, S/o Sh. Deponent's father's name, aged about Deponent's age years, R/o Deponent's address, New Delhi-110055, who does hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1.That I am the Petitioner in the above-mentioned petition, and I am well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case, and am therefore competent to swear this affidavit.
2.That I state that I have read over and understood the contents of the above-mentioned petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 CrPC, from Paragraph Nos. Starting paragraph number to Ending paragraph number at Page Nos. Starting page number to Ending page number, per the instructions, and the averments made therein have been read and understood by me. I further state that the averments made therein are true and correct to my knowledge and belief.
3.That the Annexures filed along with this petition are true copies of their respective originals.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:-
Verified at New Delhi on this Date of verification day of September, 2023, that the contents of the above Affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, that no part of it is false, and that nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL. M. APP. NO.Crl. M. App. number OF 2023.
IN
CRL. MISC. MAIN NO.Petition number OF 2023.
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Petitioner's name: PETITIONER
V E R S U S
Respondents' names: RESPONDENTS
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE SEEKING EXEMPTION FROM FILING CERTIFIED, LEGIBLE AND CLEAN TYPED COPIES OF THE ANNEXURES FILED ALONG WITH THE PETITION.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-
1.That the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the Petitioner seeking exemption from filing certified copies of the annexures filed along with the petition.
2.It is stated that the Petitioner is in the process of obtaining the clear typed copies/certified copies of the annexures, and also seeks exemption from filing legible, clean typed copies of the annexures along with the present petition.
3.It is stated that the Petitioner undertakes to file the same as soon as they are obtained.
4.It is stated that this application is bonafide and in the interest of justice.
PRAYER:-
In the light of the above-mentioned submissions, it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
(i)Exempt the Petitioner from filing the clean typed copies/certified copies of the annexures appended with the accompanying petition; and
(ii)Pass any other directions/orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case.
PETITIONER
Place: New Delhi
DatedTHROUGH
Law firm name
ADVOCATES AND LEGAL CONSULTANTS
Law firm address,
NEW DELHI-110014.
PHONE: Law firm phone number
EMAIL: Law firm email
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL. M. APP. NO.Crl. M. App. number OF 2023.
IN
CRL. MISC. MAIN NO.Petition number OF 2023.
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Petitioner's name: PETITIONER
V E R S U S
Respondents' names: RESPONDENTS
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Mr. Deponent's name, S/o Sh. Deponent's father's name, aged about Deponent's age years, R/o Deponent's address, New Delhi-110055, who does hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1.That I am the Petitioner in the aforesaid petition, and I am well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case, and am therefore competent to swear this affidavit.
2.That the submissions on facts made in the accompanying Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking exemption from filing a certified copy of the Impugned Order have been drafted by my counsel as per my instructions, and the facts stated therein are true and correct. The said Application may be read as part and parcel of this affidavit, and its contents are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:-
Verified at New Delhi on this Date of verification that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL.M. APP. NO.Crl. M. App. number OF 2023
IN
CRL. MISC. MAIN NO.Petition number OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Petitioner's name: PETITIONER
V E R S U S
Respondents' names: RESPONDENTS
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT / PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, SEEKING STAY OF THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE LD. TRIAL COURT OF Trial court judge's name, LD. M.M. (MAHILA COURT), SOUTH DIST., SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI, IN FIR NO.FIR number UNDER SECTIONS 354A/354D OF THE IPC, P.S.: SAKET, CASE TITLED AS “Complainant's name VS Petitioner's name”.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1.It is submitted that the Applicant / Petitioner has preferred the present Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Code / CrPC’) seeking stay of the proceedings pending before the Ld. Trial Court of Trial court judge's name, Ld. M.M. (Mahila Court), South Dist., Saket Courts Complex, New Delhi, in FIR FIR number under Sections 354A/354D of the IPC, P.S.: Saket, case titled as “Complainant's name Vs Petitioner's name”.
2.It is submitted that the accompanying Petition has been preferred by the Applicant / Petitioner inter alia seeking an appropriate writ / direction / order thereby setting aside the Impugned Order. As such, the contents of the accompanying Petition may be read as part and parcel of the instant Application, and are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
3.It is submitted that the Impugned Order passed by the Ld. Court below fails to pass the muster of judicial reasoning; hence, pending adjudication of the instant Petition, the Impugned Order deserves to be stayed by this Hon’ble High Court on this ground alone.
4.It is additionally submitted that the Ld. Court below, in an arbitrary and high-handed manner, passed the Impugned Order dated Impugned order date in a cryptic manner, which is not only devoid of legal merits but also has the propensity to cause irreparable loss and prejudice to the Petitioner, inasmuch as the Impugned Order wholly erred in retaining the charge under Sections 354/354A of the IPC and directing continuance of the trial against the Petitioner, thereby resulting in grave injustice and harassment to the Petitioner. It is therefore prayed that the operation of the Impugned Order be stayed by this Hon’ble Court.
5.It is further submitted that grave prejudice shall be caused to the Petitioner if the present Application is not allowed by this Hon’ble High Court.
6.It is submitted that the present Application is bona fide and may be allowed in the interests of justice.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:
a.Stay the operation of the proceedings pending before the Ld. Trial Court of Trial court judge's name, Ld. M.M. (Mahila Court), South Dist., Saket Courts Complex, New Delhi, in FIR No.FIR number under Sections 354A/354D of the IPC, P.S.: Saket, case titled as “Complainant's name Vs Petitioner's name”, till the pendency of the accompanying Petition.
b.Pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.
DELHIPETITIONER
THROUGH
DATED: Date of signing
Law firm address,
NEW DELHI
PHONE: Law firm phone number
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL.M. APP. NO.Crl. M. App. number OF 2023
IN
CRL. MISC. MAIN NO.Petition number OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Petitioner's name: PETITIONER
V E R S U S
Respondents' names: RESPONDENTS
AFFIDAVIT
I, Deponent's name, S/o Sh. Deponent's father's name, aged about Deponent's age years, R/o Deponent's address, Deponent's locality, New Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1.That I, the deponent, am the Petitioner in the above-captioned case and am well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present petition, and hence I am competent to swear the present affidavit.
2.That the accompanying application has been drafted by my counsel under my instructions, and the contents thereof have been duly read over and explained to me. Having fully understood the same, I state that the contents of the application are true and correct.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:-
Verified at Delhi on this Date of verification that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, no part of it is false, and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT