Ms. X v. The State (NCT Of Delhi) And ORS

$~14 * IN THEHIGH COURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 309/2025 MS. X .....Petitioner Through:

Ms. Archana Sharma and Mr.Navneet Tanwar, Advs.

versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ORS .....Respondents Through:

Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC along with Mr. Himanshu Bidhuri, Ms. Ayushi Srivastava, Mr. Ayush Tanwar & SI Rima Raj (Spl. Cell-NDR) & SI Puja, PS: Dwarka North.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

O R D E R

% 15.04.2025 1.

Status Report dated 28th March 2025 has been filed under signatures of SHO, P.S. Dwarka North. It is stated that there were two supplementary chargesheets which had been filed.First supplementary chargesheet was pertaining to an e-mail dated 15th January 2022, pursuant to whichinvestigation was conducted, and the documents relating to the Internal Complaints Committee, employment records, attendance records, posting details and transfer profile of both the complainant/petitioner and the accused were analyzed and filed through the said supplementary chargesheet prepared by SI Manisha on 23rd January 2022, and was submitted before the Sessions Court, Dwarka.

2.

Second supplementary chargesheet relating to the FSL result of the mobile phone was prepared on 9th September 2024 and submitted before the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Dwarka Courts. 3.

It is stated that investigation relating to the complainant'se-mail dated 15th January 2022 has been completed and the relevant supplementary chargesheet has already been submitted. It is further informed that the charges have been framed and the trial is about to begin. 4.

In this background, it is stated that the following directions were passed by Judgment dated 10th September 2024 in CRL.REV.P. 665/2022 in respect of which the contempt petition has been filed: 5.

It is submitted by Mr. Tiwari CGSC that investigation in respect of the grievance of the complainant/petitioner had already been taken into account, however, was inadvertently not informed to the Court at that stage. 6.

Counsel for petitioner, however, refutes the same and states that compliance of directions as noted above in paragraph 4must be made and states that the investigation ought to have been carried out in respect of the said e-mail and supplementary chargesheet ought to have been filed. 7.

In the opinion of this Court, what is important are the steps which have been taken; whether they have been taken prior or later may not be relevant. It The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

is stated by the Investigating Officer, who is present in the Court, that these two supplementary chargesheets have been filed and all the documents which had been presented by the complainant/petitioner, have been considered in the investigation.

8.

Needless to state, if there is any further relief which is desired by petitioner, can be sought by her in the appropriate criminal proceedings before a competent Court.

9.

Considering these facts and circumstances above, there is no need for this petition needs to continue on the Board. 10.

Liberty is given to petitioner to seek her remedy in respect of the criminal proceedings before an appropriate Court. 11.

Petition is, therefore, disposed of.

12.

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J APRIL 15, 2025/ak/tk The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.