Compromise in rape cases: Delhi HC orders vigilance inquiry

“This court notes that non-registration of an FIR in the event that the commission of a cognizable offence is disclosed goes against the law laid down by the Supreme Court,” said Justice Subramonium Prasad, while referring to the sexual assault complaint made at Kapashera police station in July 2020 by a woman.

In a related matter, the court also questioned the delay in registration of an FIR at Moti Nagar police station last year and asked whether the same was also because of a negotiation.

“A perusal of the record indicates that the medical examination of the prosecutrix/complainant in relation to FIR was conducted before the registration of the FIR but the MLC was conducted on the basis of DD Entry… This raises the suspicion that the instant FIR had not been registered at the time it was alleged…,” it said.

The court directed the DCP, Vigilance, Delhi Police to submit a report on its queries within two months. It passed the order while hearing an accused’s anticipatory bail plea in the Moti Nagar FIR. The complainant in both matters – in respect of the FIR filed last year and the ‘compromised matter’ before Kapashera police station in July 2020 – is the same. However, the allegations in both cases were levelled against two different men.

The counsel representing the accused in the Moti Nagar FIR submitted that it was a “classic case of honey trap” as the complainant and her husband have been previously involved in a similar case. The court was told that one another man had been “similarly trapped” by the woman and her husband, who only “sought to extort money from the victims” by lodging false complaints of sexual assault. The counsel made mention of the Kapashera police station complaint.

“The learned senior counsel has submitted that in (that) case, Rs 50 lakhs had been demanded from him by the prosecutrix and her husband for the matter to be settled. It has been stated that on settlement, the prosecutrix did not undergo medical examination and even gave in writing to the SHO, police station Kapashera that she was retracting her complaint regarding allegations of rape on the ground that she had filed the same in a fit of anger,” recorded the court in its order.

Regarding the Moti Nagar FIR, the police told the court that the call detail records revealed that both the woman and the accused would frequently talk to each other. The police told the court that a chargesheet was filed without the accused’s arrest and a non-bailable warrant was issued against him only after he failed to appear before the court. The police confirmed that the woman had compromised the 2017 complaint which was made before Kapashera police station.

The counsel representing the complainant denied the allegation of the case being a honey trap and submitted that it was only a means to discredit her and her allegations.

Directing the trial court to reconsider the matter pertaining to the issuance of the non-bailable warrant, which was under challenge, the High Court restrained the police from arresting the accused till February 2, the date on which the trial court will hear the matter.