Delhi High Court Orders Vigilance Inquiry Into Conduct Of Police In Not Registering Rape FIR & Attempting To Strike Compromise

The Delhi High Court has directed a vigilance inquiry to be conducted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, to ascertain as to why an FIR alleging rape and sexual assault was not registered and why the matter was allowed to be laid to rest on the basis of a compromise, despite the written complaint disclosing commission of a cognizable offence.

Justice Subramonium Prasad noted 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 in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.

"Furthermore, it has been time and again held by the Supreme Court that cases involving the offence of rape cannot be settled on the basis of a compromise," the Court said.

The development came while the Court was hearing a plea filed by a man seeking anticipatory bail in an FIR registered under sec. 376 and 328 of IPC. While the vigilance inquiry was ordered in a different FIR registered at Kapasehra police station, the petition related to another FIR registered at Moti Nagar Police Station, however, both FIRs were registered by the same prosecutrix.

It was the case of the prosecutrix that the Petitioner, whom she befriended through social media, brought alcohol to her house and emotionally blackmailed her into drinking it as a result of which she felt giddy. It was stated that the Petitioner then took advantage of the prosecutrix's vulnerable condition and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her.

After chargesheet was filed, the MM issued Non-Bailable Warrants (NBW) against the Petitioner for not appearing before the Court, thereby rejecting his exemption request.

During the course of hearing, the Petitioner counsel argued that the instant matter was a classic case of honey- trap and that the prosecutrix and her husband have been previously involved in a similar case.

He informed the Court that one Manish Tanwar had also been similarly trapped in this manner by the prosecutrix and her husband who only sought to extort money from their victims by lodging false complaints of sexual assault.

He argued that in that matter, a hand-written complaint of rape against Manish Tanwar was given to the police in Kapashera police station on 10.07.2020, but no FIR was lodged. Furthermore, he argued that on settlement, the prosecutrix did not undergo medical examination and even gave in writing to the SHO, P.S. 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.

"Furthermore, a perusal of the record indicates that the medical examination of the prosecutrix/Complainant in relation to FIR No. 668/2020 was conducted before the registration of the FIR but the MLC was conducted on the basis of DD Entry bearing No.4A. This raises the suspicion that the instant FIR had not been registered at the time it was alleged to have been registered. This adds weight to the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that there has been possible manipulation of the instant FIR and the Police was attempting to settle the case," the Court said.

Accordingly, the Court directed the vigilance inquiry to be conducted on the following aspects:

- Why an FIR was not registered at P.S. Kapashera when the written complaint of the prosecutrix dated 10.07.2020 disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence and why was the matter allowed to be laid to rest on the basis of a compromise?

- When the FIR was registered at 12:20 AM, why was the MLC registered only on the basis of DD number on the FIR and was the FIR ante timed because of negotiations in the Police Station?

The Court directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Vigilance, Delhi Police, to submit a report within a period of two months.

Case Title: RAJESH SURI @ RAJ SURI v. STATE

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 74

Click Here To Read Order