Fri. Apr 23rd, 2021

Surjit Singh vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 24 May, 2017

1 min read

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
examined the file. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the
allegations levelled by the prosecutrix in the instant case against the present
petitioner are false. The petitioner is aged around 65 years and has served
the Indian Army for around 20 years. Thereafter, he worked as a teacher
since January, 1989 and retired in September, 2009. The FIR lodged by the
prosecutrix is at the behest of Mr.Manoj Vashisht (since deceased), CMD of
M/s. RCS Parivar Finance Ltd. against whom the petitioner had led a
crusade to recover the invested money. Learned counsel further urged that

Crl.M.C. 4889/2015 Page 1 of 4
upon investigation, it was found that the petitioner had never stayed at Tara
Hotel, Cycle Market, Chandni Chowk, on 29.07.2013 when allegedly the
prosecutrix was sexually assaulted. A closure report was filed by the
investigating agency under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The delay in lodging the
FIR has not been explained. Learned APP urged that at this stage, victim’s
statement cannot be disbelieved. Reliance has been placed by the petitioner
on ‘Prashant Bharti vs. State of NCT of Delhi’, 2013 II AD (SC) 89.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply