PRASHANT BHARTI versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: [2013] 1 S.C.R. 504 · Decided: 23-01-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 1 S.C.R. 504 
A 
PRASHANT BHARTI 
B 
v. 
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 
(Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 2013) 
JANUARY 23, 2013 
[D.K. JAIN AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] 
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: 
C 
s. 482 read with s.401 -
Quashing of criminal 
proceedings - Allegations leveled by prosecutrix against 
accused for commission offences punishable ulss 328, 354 
and 376 on false promise of marriage - Charge-sheet filed -
Charges framed - Held: In the charge sheet, Investigating 
Officer acknowledged that he could not find any proof to 
D substantiate the charges - Charge-sheet was filed only on the 
basis of statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 - Further, in view of 
scientific investigation as revealed by mobile phones of 
prosecufrix and accused, commission of offence as alleged 
by prosecutrix cannot be established in trial - Therefore, 
E judicial conscience of High Court ought to have persuaded 
it, on the basis of the material available before if to quash 
criminal proceedings initiated against appellant, in exercise 
of inherent powers vested with it uls 482 - Accordingly, FIR, 
consequential charge-sheet as also charges framed by trial 
F court are quashed - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.328, 354 and 
376. 
On the basis of the statement of the complainant/ 
prosecutrix, an FIR was registered against the appellant 
G for offences punishable ulss 328 and 354, IPC. The 
appellant-accused was arrested on the same day. Five 
days thereafter the prosecutrix made a supplementary 
statement alleging that the accused, on the assurance of 
getting her married, had physical relations with her 
H 
504 
PRASHANT BHARTI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 
505 
several times, the latest being one and half months prior A 
to the date of the FIR. Accordingly, the offence punishable 
u/s 376 IPC was added to the case. Subsequently, 
statement of complainant/prosecutrix was recorded u/s 
164 CrPC by the Metropolitan Magistrate. The police filed 
charge-sheet for offences punishable u/ss 328, 354 and 
B 
376 IPC. The writ petition filed by the petitioner alleging 
false implication and seeking to quash the FIR was 
dismissed by the High Court. Even the writ petition filed 
by the prosecutrix seeking to quash the FIR filed by her 
was also dismissed. The order framing the charges c 
having been unsuccessfully challenged by the accused, 
in revision before the High Court, he filed the instant 
appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. This Court is satisfied that the assertion 
made by the complainant/ prosecutrix, that on 
23.12.2006, 25.12.2006 and 1.1.2007, she was induced to 
D 
a physical relationship by the appellant-accused, on the 
basis of a promise to marry her, stands irrefutably 
E 
falsified, as during the said period and more than one 
year and eight months thereafter, she had remained 
married to one 'LP'. She also affirmed that she was 
remarried thereafter to one 'M' and produced a "certificate· 
of marriage" dated 30.9.2008. In the absence of any 
F 
scientific evidence of sexual intercourse between the 
complainant/prosecutrix and the appellant-accused, it is 
unlikely, that a factual assertion made by the 
complainanVprosecutrix, would be acceptable over that 
of the appellant-accused. Further, a consensual 
G 
relationship without any assurance obviously will not 
substantiate the offence punishable u/s 376 IPC alleged 
against the accused. [para 15-17] [515-F-G; 516-D-E; 517-
A-B, D-E; 518-A] 
H 
A 
506 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 1 S.C.R. 
1.2. The assertions made by the prosecutrix in her 
first complaint dated 16.2.2007 regarding the incident of 
15.2.2007, her presence as well as the presence of the 
appellant-accused at the alleged place of occurrence at 
the alleged time has been established to be false on the 
B basis of mobile phone call details of the parties 
concerned, and it must be considered to be conclusive 
for all intents and purposes. The factual conclusion 
cannot be altered at the culmination of the trial, since the 
basis of such determination is scientific evidence. Neither 
c has the said material been contested by the prosecutrix. 
It is, thus, obvious that the allegation made by the 
complainant/ prosecutrix against the appellant-accused 
of having outraged her modesty, was false. What stands 
established now, will have to be reaffirmed on the basis 
0 of the same evidence at the culmination of the trial. Such 
being the fact situation, it has to be concluded, that the 
allegations levelled

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.