The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a prosecutrix challenging the discharge of an accused in a rape case, holding that an order of discharge is not an interlocutory order and thus must be challenged through a revision petition under Section 397(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
The judgment was delivered by Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha in the matter of XYZ v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (CRL.A. 1090/2024).
Background of the Case
The case stemmed from an incident where the appellant (the prosecutrix) alleged she had handed over her gold articles to the accused (Respondent No. 2). When she demanded the return of the articles, the accused allegedly asked her to establish physical relations. It was the prosecution’s case that the accused established physical relations with the appellant against her will.
Following the registration of Crime No. 7/2023 at Police Station Greater Kailash-1, an investigation was conducted, and a chargesheet was submitted alleging the commission of an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). On August 2, 2024, the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Fast Track Court, Saket, passed an order discharging the accused, finding that no prima facie case or strong suspicion had been made out.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellant moved the High Court under Section 413 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) read with Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. to challenge the discharge.
During the hearings, the appellant failed to appear regularly. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), appearing for the State, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal. The State submitted that the appeal was not maintainable and that the appellant’s proper remedy was to file a revision petition.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court, citing the dictum in Bani Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. (1996) 4 SCC 720, proceeded to consider the matter on merits despite the appellant’s absence.
The Court observed that the trial court had discharged the accused after finding a lack of prima facie evidence or strong suspicion. On the question of the appropriate legal challenge, Justice Sudha noted that the discharge of an accused is a finality in that specific proceeding and does not fall under the category of interlocutory orders. The Court observed:
“Discharge of an accused is apparently not an interlocutory order as contemplated under section 397(2) Cr.PC. Therefore, the remedy available to the appellant herein is to file a revision under section 397(1) Cr.PC.”
The Court relied on the precedent in Haryana LRB Corporation Limited v. State of Haryana (1990) 3 SCC 588 to affirm that the statutory remedy for such an order is a revision.
Decision
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the prosecutrix was not maintainable under the law. In its concluding remarks, the Court stated:
“In the result, the appeal is dismissed as not being maintainable.”
All pending applications were subsequently closed.
- Case Title: XYZ v. State of NCT of Delhi Through SHO, P.S- GK-1, New Delhi & Anr.
- Case Number: CRL.A. 1090/2024
