The Delhi High Court has nullified and quashed the FIR and all related legal actions stemming from it, in a case where the complainant accused the petitioner of rape and sexual assault. The court's reasoning for doing so is that these accusations were made solely because the petitioner allegedly didn't pay the complainant gratuity, which she, according to her own admission, was not legally entitled to receive. The court has thus dismissed the charges under Sections 354, 354A, and 376 of the IPC.

Moreover, the High Court observed that the petitioner, who is confirmed to be an 85-year-old senior citizen, is facing allegations that are deemed nonsensical and highly unlikely. Consequently, the court concluded that there is insufficient justification to permit the ongoing criminal proceedings against the petitioner to continue.

In a ruling delivered by a single judge, Justice Vikas Mahajan, it was noted that the accusations lack specific details. Upon closer examination of the available evidence, it became apparent that the prosecutrix had levied charges of rape and sexual assault against the petitioner primarily because he allegedly did not pay her gratuity, even though she herself admitted to not being legally entitled to it. Evidently, the initiation of the criminal proceedings appeared to be a malicious act, with an ulterior motive of coercing the petitioner into providing money under the guise of gratuity.

The prosecutrix, who had been working as the petitioner's secretary since 2003, filed an FIR against the petitioner, accusing him of sexually and inappropriately harassing her, and attempting to gain physical favors. She claimed that she quit her job abruptly due to these reasons, without providing any notice period. Additionally, when she requested gratuity, the petitioner allegedly denied her request. During her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the prosecutrix also alleged that she engaged in oral sex with the petitioner. As a result, Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with rape, was added to the FIR, and a chargesheet was filed. However, at the time of the petitioner's approach to the High Court, neither the charges had been formally framed nor had cognizance been taken in the case.

After carefully examining the arguments presented, the Bench discovered that, upon reviewing the contents of the chargesheet, it became evident that the allegations pertained to events that occurred in 2023. However, the prosecutrix had lodged her complaint for the first time in September 2022, which subsequently led to the registration of the FIR.

The Bench also noted that there was a significant and unexplained delay in reporting the alleged incidents, and the FIR did not offer any justification for this delay. It was only in the prosecutrix's statement that an explanation for the delay emerged. In this statement, she stated that she was the sole breadwinner for her family and, due to financial difficulties and her own immaturity, she continued to work in the petitioner's office despite the alleged problems.

The Bench also considered the prosecutrix's explanation that she continued to work in the petitioner's office due to being the sole breadwinner for her family, which supposedly resulted from financial problems and immaturity. However, the Bench found this explanation to be factually incorrect, as the prosecutrix's husband, in his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), explicitly stated that he had been working with a Logistic Company in Gurgaon for the past 20 years and was earning a monthly salary of Rs. 40,000. Consequently, it became evident that the petitioner was not the sole financial provider for the family, and the reason given by the prosecutrix for continuing to work in the petitioner's office, despite alleging a suffocating atmosphere, was disproven.

Therefore, upon a comprehensive examination of both the FIR and the statement of the prosecutrix, the Bench noted that the prosecutrix had introduced significant and substantial changes to her initial account, which had led to the registration of the FIR.

The Bench also noted that neither version of the complaint contained specific dates, times, or detailed descriptions of any particular incident. Furthermore, it was observed that the alleged offenses were said to have occurred over a span of 18 years. Given this extended timeframe, it appeared highly unlikely that the prosecutrix had not shared any information about the alleged incidents involving the petitioner with anyone, not even with her own husband.

Interestingly, the Bench discovered that the prosecutrix's husband, in his statement claimed complete ignorance regarding any alleged actions of the petitioner. In fact, he explicitly stated that the prosecutrix had never informed him that her boss had engaged in any wrongful behavior with her.

The Bench made another intriguing observation, noting that the prosecutrix had lodged a complaint with the Delhi Commission for Women. In this complaint, she explicitly stated that no molestation or sexual assault had taken place, and her primary concern was to receive the gratuity owed to her. She expressed no intention to pursue her case against the petitioner.

However, with regards to the prosecutrix's entitlement to gratuity, the Bench noted that she admitted, in response to a query posed by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), that there was no provision for gratuity in her employment with the petitioner.

In light of the various observations and findings, the High Court decided to quash the FIR and granted approval to the petition.

Case: Surendra Nayar v. State and Anr,  CRL.M.C. 5733/2023 & CRL.M.A.21584/2023 (stay).