'Allurement Advanced For Extortion Of Money Not Acceptable', Delhi HC Asks CP, Delhi To Compile Data Of Honey Trap Cases In 2020 & Act As Per Law [Read Order]

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday (23rd September) asked the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to call reports from all the police stations of Honey Trap/Extortion cases and file a report to this effect within four weeks.The Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait further directed that if the Commissioner of Police, Delhi feels that similar type of incidents have taken place in Delhi in the the year 2020; he shall issue standing orders to all the concerned Police Stations that action may be taken as per law, however, without harassing such person/alleged accused therein.Notably, the Bench was hearing a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for grant of Pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner in case of FIR No.569/2020, registered under Sections 376 IPC at Police Station, Mehrauli.Prosecution's CaseAs per the complaint of the prosecutrix, the petitioner and complainant both were completely unknown and stranger to each other till 24.08.2020. Prosecutrix is a personal trainer by profession and she was searching for a new job.She got the number of Delta Electronics' owner namely Kapil Gupta. She texted him for a job, to which he replied that he was looking for a hot personal assistant. She said that they could discuss it.Then the petitioner asked her for a relationship and she replied that she did not feel comfortable with anyone in the first meeting. She said that they would have some coffee. Then the petitioner called her and asked for wine and she was fine with it.She sent him her location and thereafter, he came to her place. They started talking normally about the profession, then petitioner gave her two drinks and she became high and he started removing her clothes.Allegedly, he started punching on her right leg and raped her. She was helpless and was crying and she was trying to call her neighbours.She scratched him on his chest and called her neighbour Jasmin. When she came, she saw that the petitioner had vanished from her house after raping her.The said incident is of dated 24.08.2020 and accordingly, she made a complaint which culminated into the FIR in question.Arguments Put Forth by the APPThe APP opposed the present petition by stating that presence of the petitioner at the spot is not in dispute. He admittedly had gone to the house of the complainant with wine bottles.He had no business to attend her call and go to a stranger lady at her place after a first conversation. Thus, he argued that the allegations are serious against the petitioner; therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.Arguments Put Forth by the PetitionerThe Counsel (Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Adv) for the petitioner submitted that the Petitioner was approached by the complainant through a Whatsapp message on 24.08.2020 at 12:46 pm.She asked him, whether the petitioner is looking for any 'personal assistant', to which, the petitioner answered in affirmative. Thereafter, instead of sending pictures in professional suits/attire, the complainant sent her sensuous pictures in bathing suit/bikinis to the Petitioner.It was further submitted that chatting between the complainant and the petitioner started at 12:46 pm and all these pictures had been sent by the complainant herself to a complete stranger on his phone within three minutes i.e. at 12:49 pm.It was argued that "the ravishing pictures were deliberately shared by the complainant to entice the petitioner so that he might open up and could be put to right use in the trap which lay ahead. The chat which hitherto was between an employer and employee suddenly turned informal and petitioner started moving towards the trap."On the same day, it was submitted, i.e. on 24.08.2020, the complainant and the petitioner had a telephonic conversation wherein the complainant invited the petitioner to her flat/house (at Saket) and asked him to get some wine.It was submitted that she hinted that she was available for a long term relationship and wouldn't mind lovemaking.Soon, the Counsel for the petitioner submitted, all the inhibitions were shed and hitherto normal text messages got mixed with flirtatious, erotic undertones and all the advances by the petitioner in said direction were overly welcomed by the complainant and there was not an iota of any demur and/or any protest.The senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has been trapped and tricked under a well-designed, meticulously planned and the thoroughly woven racket of extortionists.The Counsel submitted that the petitioner was being seduced by the complainant and when he came to her home, she demanded Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs) from him and when her demand for money was not fulfilled, she registered an entirely fabricated, false and concocted case of rape against the petitioner.Court's DecisionThe Court opined that "though acceptance of allurement is not justified, at the same time, allurement advanced for extortion of money is also not acceptable."After perusing the...

'Allurement Advanced For Extortion Of Money Not Acceptable', Delhi HC Asks CP, Delhi To Compile Data Of Honey Trap Cases In 2020 & Act As Per Law [Read Order]

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sparsh Upadhyay

'Allurement Advanced For Extortion Of Money Not Acceptable', Delhi HC Asks CP, Delhi To Compile Data Of Honey Trap Cases In 2020 & Act As Per Law [Read Order]

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers