Delhi High Court – Orders
Pp vs The State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 3 July, 2025
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4253/2025 & CRL.M.A.Nos.18558-59/2025
PP .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sunita Arora,
Advocate from DHCLSC.
versus
THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam,
APP for the State with SI
Sapna Rana and SI Vinod
Bhati, PS Mehrauli.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 03.07.2025
1. The present petition is filed by the prosecutrix/petitioner
challenging the order dated 20.02.2025 (hereafter ‘impugned
order’), passed by Special Judge (PC Act), CBI-23 (MPs/MLAs
cases), Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi, in Criminal Appeal
No.04/2024 filed by Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 341
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC‘) against the
order dated 06.03.2024, in Misc. Crl. N. 4/2024.
2. By order dated 06.03.2024, the learned the learned
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (‘ACMM’) hd
dismissed the application filed by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 under
Section 340 of the CrPC.
3. By the impugned order, the learned Appellate Court set
aside order dated 06.03.2024 and specifically noted that the
prosecutrix/petitioner had made false allegations against
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and thereby directed inquiry against her
under Section 340 of the CrPC.
CRL.M.C. 4253/2025 Page 1 of 9
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/07/2025 at 21:54:55
4. The brief facts are that on 12.04.2018, the
prosecutrix/petitioner received a phone call from Respondent No.
3 asking her to meet him at Roshan Tent House, New Khanna
Market, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi at around 6:00 p.m.,
whereafter, he told her that he would sort the ongoing disputes
between the prosecutrix/petitioner and his brother. Respondent
No. 3 further stated that she would have to accompany him to a
farmhouse in Chhatarpur, where his brother and her wife would
also be present.
5. It is alleged that after reaching the said farmhouse, the
prosecutrix/petitioner was asked by Respondent No. 3 to switch
off her mobile phone, whereafter, he started talking to her.
Respondent No. 3 thereafter called a waiter and asked him to
bring some eatables and cold drinks for them.
6. It is alleged that after consuming the aforesaid eatables and
cold drinks, the prosecutrix/petitioner became unconscious,
whereafter, Respondent No. 3 allegedly committed sexual assault
on her.
7. It is further alleged that Respondent No. 3 threatened the
prosecutrix/petitioner, that he had made video recordings of her
indulging in sexual activities and if she tried to make any
complaints against the alleged incident, he would circulate the
same to tarnish her character.
8. That on 22.04.2018, the prosecutrix/petitioner after
recovering from depression from the alleged incident, lodged a
complaint against Respondent No. 3 in Police Station Mehrauli,
however, the police took no action on the said complaint.
9. Aggrieved, the prosecutrix/petitioner on 21.06.2018 filed a
complaint under Section 200 of the CrPC being CT Case No.
8566/2018, along with an application under Section 156(3) of the
CRL.M.C. 4253/2025 Page 2 of 9
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/07/2025 at 21:54:55
CrPC for registration of FIR for the offences under Section
376/328/120B/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC‘).
10. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate (‘MM’) pursuant to
the compliant made by the prosecutrix/petitioner by order dated
07.07.2018 directed the police to register an FIR.
11. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned MM,
Respondent No. 3 preferred a Revision Petition under Section
397 of the CrPC before the learned Additional Sessions Judge
(‘ASJ’) being Crl. Rev. No. 258/2018.
12. The learned ASJ by order dated 12.07.2018 dismissed the
Revision Petition filed by Respondent No. 3, whereafter, he
challenged the same before this Court under Section 482 of the
CrPC being Crl. M.C. No. 3456/2018. The same was dismissed
by this Court vide order dated 17.08.2022.
13. Respondent No. 3 further challenged the order of this
Court before the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing SLP (Criminal)
No. 7653/2022 and the same was dismissed by order dated
16.01.2023.
14. Pursuant to the order registering the FIR being upheld by
the Hon’ble Apex Court, the police registered FIR No. 85/2023
dated 21.01.2023, at Police Station Mehrauli under Sections
376/328/506 of the IPC.
15. It is alleged that even after registration of FIR the police
did not conduct the investigation in a proper manner. It is further
alleged to save Respondent No. 3 the police filed a false
cancellation report dated 25.04.2023 before the learned MM.
16. Being aggrieved by the said cancellation report, the
prosecutrix/petitioner on 24.04.2023 filed a protest petition being
CR No. 10/2023. The learned MM by order dated 10.10.2023
allowed the said protest petition and took cognizance of offences
CRL.M.C. 4253/2025 Page 3 of 9
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/07/2025 at 21:54:55
under Section 376/328/506 of the IPC.
17. Respondent No. 3 challenged the aforesaid order by filing
a Revision Petition before the learned ASJ being Crl. Rev. No.
49/2023. The same was allowed by the learned ASJ by order
dated 16.12.2023.
18. The prosecutrix/petitioner aggrieved by the order dated
16.12.2023 filed Criminal Revision before this Court bearing Crl.
Rev. No. 342/2024.
19. Subsequently, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed an
application under Section 340 of the CrPC before the learned
MM, whereafter, the same was dismissed by order 06.03.2024.
20. They challenged the same before the learned ASJ by filing
a Criminal Appeal under Section 341 of the CrPC bearing Crl. A.
No. 04/2024.
21. This Court by order dated 02.08.2024 dismissed the
revision petition filed by the prosecutrix/petitioner. The same
was challenged by her before the Hon’ble Apex Court under SLP
(Crl) Diary No. 53201/2024. By order dated 06.01.2025 the
Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the aforesaid SLP filed by the
prosecutrix/petitioner.
22. The prosecutrix/petitioner being aggrieved by the
dismissal of the SLP filed a Review Petition being Diary No.
17054/2025 which is stated to be pending before the Hon’ble
Apex Court.
23. Subsequently, the learned ASJ by the impugned order
allowed the Criminal Appeal filed by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3
and directed inquiry against the prosecutrix/petitioner under
Section 340 of the CrPC for making false allegations against
them. The same led to the filing of the present petition.
24. The learned counsel for the prosecutrix/petitioner submits
CRL.M.C. 4253/2025 Page 4 of 9
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/07/2025 at 21:54:55
the learned ASJ failed to consider that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3
had filed an application under Section 340 of the CrPC in order
to harass the prosecutrix/petitioner and the learned MM had
rightly dismissed the same.
25. She submits that the prosecutrix/petitioner did not
tenderany false affidavits or made any false allegations in the
complaint under Section 156(3) of the CrPC against Respondent
Nos. 2 and 3 and she ought not to be held liable to any kind of
inquiry against her.
26. She further submits that the learned ASJ failed to
appreciate the fact that the police did not conduct a proper
investigation against Respondent No. 3. She submits that the
prosecutrix/petitioner had made several complaints against
Respondent No. 3, however, no action had been taken by the
police regarding the same.
27. I have heard the learned counsel for the
prosecutrix/petitioner and perused the record.
Analysis
28. The limited question before this Court is whether the
learned ASJ erred by initiating an inquiry against the
prosecutrix/petitioner under Section 340 of the CrPC.
29. Section 340 of the CrPC provides for an inquiry and filing
of a complaint in case the party is found to have committed
offences referred in Section 195(1)(b) of the CrPC, which relates
to filing of false evidence in any judicial proceedings. Section
340 of the CrPC reads as under:
“340. Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195.–(1) When,
upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any
Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of Justice
that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in
clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 195, which appears to
have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that
CRL.M.C. 4253/2025 Page 5 of 9This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/07/2025 at 21:54:55
Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced
or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court
may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks
necessary,–
(a) record a finding to that effect;
(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;
(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having
jurisdiction;
(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused
before such Magistrate, or if the alleged
offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to
do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and
(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before
such Magistrate.
(2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section (1) in
respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has
neither made a complaint under sub-section (1) in respect of
that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such
complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former
Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of
section 195.
(3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed,–
(a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by
such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint;
[(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court or by
such officer of the Court as the Court may authorise in writing
in this behalf.]
(4) In this section, “Court” has the same meaning as in section
195.”
30. It is not in doubt that in case the prosecutrix/petitioner is
found to have committed an offence as defined under Section
195 of the IPC, an appropriate inquiry can be ordered under
Section 340 of the CrPC.
31. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of James Kunjwal v.
The State of Uttarakhand : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1943 held
that an inquiry under Section 340 of the CrPC should be initiated
if it is expedient in the interest of justice. The relevant portion of
the judgment is reproduced hereunder:
“16. What we may conclude from a perusal of the above-noticed
judicial pronouncements is that:–
CRL.M.C. 4253/2025 Page 6 of 9
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/07/2025 at 21:54:55
(i) The Court should be of the prima facie opinion that there
exists sufficient and reasonable ground to initiate proceedings
against the person who has allegedly made a false statement(s);
(ii) Such proceedings should be initiated when doing the same is
“expedient in the interests of justice to punish the delinquent”
and not merely because of inaccuracy in statements that may be
innocent/immaterial;
(iii) There should be “deliberate falsehood on a matter of
substance”;
(iv) The Court should be satisfied that there is a reasonable
foundation for the charge, with distinct evidence and not mere
suspicion;
(v) Proceedings should be initiated in exceptional
circumstances, for instance, when a party has perjured
themselves to beneficial orders from the Court.”
32. In the present case the prosecutrix/petitioner had alleged
offences under Section 376/328/506 of the IPC against
Respondent No. 3. The said offences are serious in nature.
33. It is argued that the prosecutrix had not tendered any
affidavit before the learned MM at the time of filing an
application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. It is trite law that
an application filed under Section 156(3) of the CrPC is to be
supported by an affidavit [Ref. Priyanaka Srivastava v. State of
Uttar Pradesh : (2015) 6 SCC 287]. In view of the same, the
argument of the petitioner in this regard is unmerited as the
complaint under Section 156(3) of the CrPC could not have been
filed by the prosecutrix without a supporting affidavit.
34. The learned ASJ in the impugned order has specifically
noted that the false affidavits tendered by the
prosecutrix/petitioner interfered with the administration of
justice.
35. It is pertinent to note that the present case is not one where
the prosecution has been unable to prove the allegations against
the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Herein, after conducting a
CRL.M.C. 4253/2025 Page 7 of 9
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/07/2025 at 21:54:55
thorough investigation, the police had filed a cancellation report
dated 25.04.2023 in FIR No. 85/2023 before the learned MM.
The police in the said report specifically noted that the statements
of the witnesses recorded during the course of investigation are
completely contrary to the version of the prosecutrix, as alleged
by her in her statement under Section 161 of the CrPC. It was
also found that the prosecutrix/petitioner and Respondent No. 3
were not present at the alleged place of the incident on
12.04.2018. The prosecutrix challenged the aforesaid
cancellation report before this Court by way of Criminal
Revision bearing Crl Rev. No. 342/2024. This court by order
dated 02.08.2024 dismissed the aforesaid petition and observed
as under:
“77. In the present case, the overwhelming independent ocular,
documentary and scientific evidence collected during the
investigations, whereby the presence of the respondent no.2 and
complainant on the date of the alleged incident at the place of
alleged incident i.e. Sharma Farmhouse is completely ruled
out, the possibility of the commission of alleged offence is
rendered zilch. Hence, conclusion of the learned Additional
Sessions Judge in accepting the Cancellation Report has to be
upheld”.
36. The challenge against the aforesaid order was dismissed
by the Hon’ble Apex Court, and the same has therefore attained
finality. The cancellation report is sufficient for the Court to form
a prima facie opinion that the petitioner had narrated false facts
in her supporting affidavit with the complaint. In such
circumstances, considering that the material before the Court
suggests that, prima facie, the petitioner sought to falsely
implicate Respondent No.3 deliberately, it is expedient in the
interest of justice that action is initiated in this respect and the
same is brought to a logical conclusion.
CRL.M.C. 4253/2025 Page 8 of 9
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/07/2025 at 21:54:55
37. It is pertinent to note that if making of such serious
allegations with an oblique motive is not discouraged, then the
proceedings before the court will be a way for the parties to settle
their personal scores and will interfere with the administration of
justice. It is also rightly observed in the impugned order that the
allegations made by the prosecutrix could have an adverse effect
on the reputation and political career of Respondent No. 3.
38. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the learned ASJ by
the impugned order had rightly initiated inquiry proceedings
against the prosecutrix/petitioner under Section 340 of the CrPC.
39. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I feel no reason to
interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned ASJ.
40. The present petition is therefore dismissed. Pending
Application(s) if any also stand disposed of.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
JULY 3, 2025
CRL.M.C. 4253/2025 Page 9 of 9
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/07/2025 at 21:54:55