A man has been discharged in a case of allegedly stalking a woman by a session court which observed that the lady was in a habit of lodging false FIRs alleging sexual offences, an aspect ignored by the magistrate.
Expressing displeasure over the order of the lower court which had framed the charge against the accused, Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sanjay Bansal said the magistrate did not even peruse the call detail records (CDRs) of the accused and the complainant which was “strange and inexplicable”.
“The same lady is lodging so many FIRs against so many persons. This is not just a coincidence. The metropolitan magistrate (MM) shut her eyes to this aspect.
“The MM did not think it proper to spare a thought as to why so many FIRs were lodged by the same lady, most of which were regarding sexual offences,” the session judge said.
The court made the observations while allowing the plea of accused Naveen Kumar against the magisterial court’s order framing charge against him for the offence of stalking under section 354D of the IPC.
“I find it strange and inexplicable that the MM did not look into the CDR. The accused was merely asking for scrutiny of the material produced by the prosecution itself. In my view, the MM was under obligation to peruse the CDRs but she failed in performing her task,” the ASJ said.
In his plea filed through advocate R K Chaudhary, the accused had contended that the complainant was a habitual extortionist and used false FIRs to extract money from innocent people.
He had argued that several FIRs had been registered against the complainant herself for extortion and that she was lodged in judicial custody in such cases.
“Taking into account the fact of lodging so many FIRs by the complainant, the contention of counsel for the petitioner/ accused cannot be ignored. It appears to be modus operandi of the complainant to lodge false FIRs and extort money from innocent persons,” the session judge said.
According to the prosecution, an FIR was lodged by the woman alleging that Kumar and two others were stalking her and repeatedly making phone calls to her in 2013. The trial court, however, had framed charges against Kumar only.
The accused had in 2014 filed a cross complaint against the woman for lodging a false stalking case to extort money, after which a city court had directed Delhi Police to register an FIR against her.