Dismissed¶¶87

Pp v. the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Delhi HC3 Jul 2025CRL.M.C./4253/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL.M.C. 4253/2025; Delhi High Court; Justice Amit Mahajan; decided 03.07.2025; Section 340 CrPC inquiry into false allegations; Section 341 CrPC criminal appeal; Section 156(3) CrPC affidavit requirement; Section 195(1)(b) CrPC; FIR No. 85/2023 PS Mehrauli; Sections 376/328/506 IPC; cancellation report dated 25.04.2023; protest petition CR No. 10/2023; prosecutrix; falsely implicating Respondent No. 3; James Kunjwal v. State of Uttarakhand 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1943; Priyanaka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 6 SCC 287; petition dismissed; pending applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

The learned ASJ, by the impugned order, rightly initiated inquiry proceedings against the prosecutrix/petitioner under Section 340 CrPC; this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order. ¶¶87

Pp Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶87

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned ASJ erred by initiating an inquiry against the prosecutrix/petitioner under Section 340 of the CrPC.

¶¶45

Court's answer

¶¶87

Ratio / Principle

The cancellation report dated 25.04.2023 in FIR No. 85/2023, whose acceptance has attained finality up to the Hon'ble Apex Court, gives the Court a prima facie basis that the petitioner narrated false facts in her supporting affidavit and deliberately sought to falsely implicate Respondent No. 3; it is expedient in the interest of justice that action be initiated and brought to a logical conclusion.

¶¶82

Key takeaways

An application under Section 156(3) CrPC must be supported by an affidavit; the complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC could not have been filed by the prosecutrix without a supporting affidavit, so her argument on this point is unmerited.ratio¶¶75
This is not a case where the prosecution failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt; after a thorough investigation the police filed a cancellation report noting that witness statements were completely contrary to the prosecutrix's version and that she and Respondent No. 3 were not present at the alleged place of incident on 12.04.2018.ratio¶¶77

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Amit Mahajan, J., order dated 03.07.2025 in CRL.M.C. 4253/2025) dismissed the prosecutrix's petition challenging the order dated 20.02.2025 passed by the Special Judge (PC Act), Rouse Avenue Court in Criminal Appeal No.04/2024 (under Section 341 CrPC), whereby the appellate court had set aside the ACMM's order dated 06.03.2024 and directed an inquiry against her under Section 340 CrPC for allegedly making false allegations against Respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Held: (i) the police cancellation report dated 25.04.2023 in FIR No. 85/2023 (Sections 376/328/506 IPC, PS Mehrauli), whose acceptance attained finality up to the Supreme Court, furnished a prima facie basis that the petitioner narrated false facts in her supporting affidavit and deliberately sought to falsely implicate Respondent No. 3, making initiation of inquiry expedient in the interest of justice (relying on James Kunjwal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1943); (ii) an application under Section 156(3) CrPC must be supported by an affidavit (relying on Priyanaka Srivastava v. State of U.P., (2015) 6 SCC 287); (iii) unfounded serious allegations with oblique motive, if not discouraged, reduce court proceedings to a tool for settling personal scores. Petition dismissed; pending applications disposed of.

¶1

$~28

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 4253/2025 & CRL.M.A.Nos.18558-59/2025

¶4

PP .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Sunita Arora, Advocate from DHCLSC.

¶5

versus

¶6

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.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN O R D E R

¶8

% 03.07.2025

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

CRL.M.C. 4253/2025

¶13

Page 1 of 9

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 08/07/2025 at 11:58:29

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

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 08/07/2025 at 11:58:29

¶22

CrPC for registration of FIR for the offences under Section 376/328/120B/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘ IPC ’).

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

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

¶30

CRL.M.C. 4253/2025

¶31

Page 3 of 9

¶32

¶33

under Section 376/328/506 of the IPC.

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

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.

¶37

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.

¶38

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.

¶39

The learned counsel for the prosecutrix/petitioner submits CRL.M.C. 4253/2025 Page 4 of 9

¶40

Page 4 of 9

¶41

¶42

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.

¶43

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.

¶44

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

¶45

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.

¶46

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:

¶47

“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

¶48

Page 5 of 9

¶49

CRL.M.C. 4253/2025

¶50

¶51

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,—

¶52

(a) record a finding to that effect;

¶53

(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;

¶54

(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;

¶55

(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged

¶56

offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and

¶57

(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate.

¶58

(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.

¶59

(3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed,—

¶60

(a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint;

¶61

[(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.]

¶62

(4) In this section, “Court” has the same meaning as in section 195.”

¶63

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.

¶64

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:

¶65

“16. What we may conclude from a perusal of the above-noticed judicial pronouncements is that:—

¶66

CRL.M.C. 4253/2025

¶67

Page 6 of 9

¶68

¶69

(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);

¶70

(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;

¶71

(iii) There should be “deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance”;

¶72

(iv) The Court should be satisfied that there is a reasonable foundation for the charge, with distinct evidence and not mere suspicion;

¶73

(v) Proceedings should be initiated in exceptional circumstances, for instance, when a party has perjured themselves to beneficial orders from the Court.”

¶74

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.

¶75

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.

¶76

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.

¶77

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

¶78

CRL.M.C. 4253/2025 Page 7 of 9

¶79

¶80

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:

¶81

“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”.

¶82

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.

¶83

Page 8 of 9

¶84

CRL.M.C. 4253/2025

¶85

¶86

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.

¶87

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

Page 9 of 9

CRL.M.C. 4253/2025

¶92

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 20.02.2025 in Criminal Appeal No.04/2024 (filed by Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 341 CrPC against the ACMM's order dated 06.03.2024 dismissing their Section 340 CrPC application): the Appellate Court set aside the ACMM's order, noted that the prosecutrix/petitioner had made false allegations against Respondents Nos. 2 and 3, and directed inquiry against her under Section 340 CrPC.¶¶11
Special Judge (PC Act), CBI-23 (MPs/MLAs cases), Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi · 20.02.2025
Prior proceeding
Alleged incident of 12.04.2018: prosecutrix alleges she was called to Roshan Tent House, Lodhi Colony and then to a farmhouse in Chhatarpur, drugged and sexually assaulted by Respondent No. 3, who threatened her with video recordings.¶¶16
Prior proceeding
Complaint lodged against Respondent No. 3 at Police Station Mehrauli on 22.04.2018; police took no action.¶¶20
Prior proceeding
On 21.06.2018 the prosecutrix filed a complaint under Section 200 CrPC (CT Case No. 8566/2018) with an application under Section 156(3) CrPC seeking FIR for offences under Sections 376/328/120B/506 IPC.¶¶20
Prior proceeding
Metropolitan Magistrate by order dated 07.07.2018 directed the police to register an FIR.¶¶23
Prior proceeding
Respondent No. 3's Revision Petition (Crl. Rev. No. 258/2018) under Section 397 CrPC before the ASJ was dismissed by order dated 12.07.2018.¶¶25
Prior proceeding
Respondent No. 3's petition under Section 482 CrPC (Crl. M.C. No. 3456/2018) before this Court was dismissed vide order dated 17.08.2022.¶¶25
Prior proceeding
Respondent No. 3's SLP (Criminal) No. 7653/2022 before the Hon'ble Apex Court was dismissed by order dated 16.01.2023.¶¶26
Prior proceeding
FIR No. 85/2023 dated 21.01.2023 registered at Police Station Mehrauli under Sections 376/328/506 IPC pursuant to the upheld order registering the FIR.¶¶27
Prior proceeding
Police filed a cancellation report dated 25.04.2023 in FIR No. 85/2023 before the learned MM, alleging improper investigation to save Respondent No. 3.¶¶28
Prior proceeding
Prosecutrix filed protest petition CR No. 10/2023 on 24.04.2023; the learned MM allowed it by order dated 10.10.2023 and took cognizance of offences under Sections 376/328/506 IPC.¶¶29
Prior proceeding
Respondent No. 3's Revision Petition (Crl. Rev. No. 49/2023) before the ASJ was allowed by order dated 16.12.2023.¶¶34
Prior proceeding
Application under Section 340 CrPC filed by Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 before the learned MM was dismissed by order dated 06.03.2024.¶¶10
Prior proceeding
Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 challenged the dismissal by Criminal Appeal under Section 341 CrPC bearing Crl. A. No. 04/2024 before the learned ASJ.¶¶35
Prior proceeding
Prosecutrix's Criminal Revision (Crl. Rev. No. 342/2024) before this Court against the order dated 16.12.2023 was dismissed by order dated 02.08.2024.¶¶36
Prior proceeding
Prosecutrix's SLP (Crl) Diary No. 53201/2024 before the Hon'ble Apex Court was dismissed by order dated 06.01.2025.¶¶36
Prior proceeding
Review Petition (Diary No. 17054/2025) filed by the prosecutrix against dismissal of her SLP is stated to be pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court.¶¶37

Pp v. the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pp v. the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinay Kumar & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Sidharth Khera & Ors. Vs State (Gnctd) through SHO P.S. Caw Cell Nanakpura & Anr.

Anil Vs Anju Kumari & Ors.

Sageer Ahmed Vs State of Gnct of Delhi

Ajit Singh Sood Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Dushyant @ Sonu & Ors. Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.