Chandra Mauli & ORS. v. State (Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi) & ANR.

$~9 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 2709/2018 CHANDRA MAULI & ORS.

..... Petitioners Through:

Mr Umesh Sharma and Mr Dinesh Kumar, Advocates.

versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr Avi Singh, ASC for State with Mr Tanuj Bhadana, Advocate.

ASI Jai Prakash, STF Crime Branch.

Mr Sandeep D. Das, Advocate for R2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R

% 03.12.2019 1.

The petitioners have filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that FIR bearing no. 39/2018 under Sections 384/389/120-B of the IPC registered with PS Crime Branch, South-West Delhi and all proceedings emanating therefrom, be quashed.

2.

The FIR in question was registered at the instance of respondent no.2. The present petition is premised on a settlement arrived at between the concerned parties (respondent no.2 and the petitioners). 3.

Respondent no. 2 had stated that during the period between June, 2017 and September, 2017 he had been approached by two girls namely, Priyanka and Neha, posing as journalists at his office on the pretext of taking his interview. He stated that he had met them in the later part of

October, 2017. They had befriended him and they started exchanging messages. He stated that he and Priyanka met at the Eros Coffee Shop and a Coffee House in Connaught Place. Thereafter, his interview was scheduled for 21.01.2018 between 3 PM to 6 PM at a hotel near Regal Cinema. He stated that at the request of Priyanka, he accompanied her for a movie show at the PVR Regal. However, they could not complete the same as Priyanka received a message and she informed him that he they had to leave immediately. He alleged that he was taken to a hotel in Paharganj, where a room was already booked. He states that in the room, he was offered certain refreshments. After consuming the same, he felt dizzy and has no clear recollection of the events thereafter. He stated that he boarded a taxi at 6.49 PM. Apparently, his interaction with the said persons was video-graphed and an obscene video was recorded, the said accused (Priyanka) had called respondent no. 2 and stated that she had become pregnant and she would file a rape case, if he did not marry her.

4.

The status report has been filed wherein it is stated that the petitioners are a part of an organised racket for extortion and apart from the complainant, there is material to believe that they had also blackmailed other persons as well. Moreover, petitioner no.3 was also caught red handed by accepting a sum of ₹9.54 lakhs from the complainant. During investigation, a laptop containing obscene videos of persons other than the complainant had also been recovered. It is stated that certain fake Aadhaar cards have also been recovered.

5.

In view of the assertion that the petitioners are a part of an organised racket for extortion and the same modus operandi has been adopted to extort

money from other persons as well; this Court does not consider it apposite to allow the present petition. Clearly, it would not serve the ends of justice to quash the FIR in question.

6.

The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

7.

It is clarified that nothing stated herein should be considered as an expression of opinion as to the merits of the allegations made against the petitioners.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J DECEMBER 03, 2019 RK