News Updates

Delhi HC Refuses To Quash Rape Charges Against Executive Director Of The People’s Vigilance Committee On Human Rights [Read Judgment]

Apoorva Mandhani
12 Nov 2017 9:52 AM GMT
Delhi HC Refuses To Quash Rape Charges Against Executive Director Of The People’s Vigilance Committee On Human Rights [Read Judgment]
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Delhi High Court has refused to quash rape charges against Mr. Lenin Raghuvanshi, who is the Executive Director of the People’s Vigilance Committee on Human Rights (PVCHR).

Mr. Raghuvanshi had filed a revision Petition, seeking quashing of the charges framed against him under Sections 328 (causing hurt by poisoning) and 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the allegations, the complainant was made to stay at the same hotel as that of the Petitioner, after she had expressed her willingness to join the PVCHR. Mr. Raghuvanshi then allegedly invited her to his room and offered her a drink, consumption of which made her unconscious. He then allegedly raped her.

She filed a complaint two years after the incident, pursuant to which charges were framed against Mr. Raghuvanshi by the Additional District Judge. This order of the ADJ was now challenged before the High Court.

Mr. Raghuvanshi had pointed out that the FIR was filed after a delay of more than 2 years. He had further contended that the refusal of the complainant to undergo a medical examination reflected a lacuna in the case.

The Court, however, did not agree with such contentions and opined that there existed a prima facie case against the Petitioner.

Justice I.S. Mehta then observed, "In the present case there is statement of the victim/prosecutrix under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. qua the petitioner, and appreciation of the evidence would be seen during the trial. Since the statement of the victim is coming against the petitioner at this stage. The delay of lodging the FIR which is registered on the basis of the said statement could be seen in the light of other factors in the instant case which will be determined during the trial only. Therefore, at this stage there is a sufficient prima facie case for trial is made out against the petitioner and it is not proper to interfere with the Lower Court's order at this stage."

Read the Judgment Here

Next Story