<p> The Delhi High Court has rejected a doctor’s plea to quash a magistrate’s order summoning him to face trial in a rape case on ground of delay by the complainant in lodging the FIR.<br /><br /></p>.<p>The court, however, left the issue to be considered by the trial court and accepted the victim’s argument that the delay in lodging the FIR was due to “constant threats” from the accused.<br /><br />Dismissing the doctor’s plea, Justice P K Bhasin upheld the magistrate’s order summoning him to face the trial on the victim’s complaint and referring the case to be tried by a sessions court. <br /><br />“In my view, the delay aspect would be a matter for consideration by the sessions court where the case already stands committed. The sessions court can examine whether the complainant had actually reported the incident of rape to the police in July, 2003 itself or not and also whether her version could be rejected even if no such complaint had been given by her to the police.<br /><br />“The magistrate was fully justified in passing the order on a prima facie view of the pre-summoning statement of the prosecutrix-complainant. According to the complainant’s statement she could not seek police assistance as she was under continuous threat to her life by the petitioner. This claim of the prosecutrix was sufficient to ignore the delay in her approaching the court for the purpose of taking cognisance and summoning the accused,” the court said.<br /><br />The court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the incident took place in 2003 but the complaint was filed only in 2009 and this delay should be considered to be a “good ground for throwing away” the complaint instead of the magistrate taking cognisance and summoning him.<br /><br />According to the complainant, she got married in 1998 and the accused used to visit her house for her husband’s treatment as he was his friend.<br /><br />She claimed she had an estranged relationship with her husband and in connivance with her husband, the doctor had raped her for more than a month in her own house in July 2003.<br /><br />She alleged she was assaulted and threatened by the accused as well as her husband. <br />The victim claimed that despite a complaint at Hari Nagar police, no action was taken against the doctor and her husband finally leading her to file a complaint case before the magistrate in 2009.<br /></p>
<p> The Delhi High Court has rejected a doctor’s plea to quash a magistrate’s order summoning him to face trial in a rape case on ground of delay by the complainant in lodging the FIR.<br /><br /></p>.<p>The court, however, left the issue to be considered by the trial court and accepted the victim’s argument that the delay in lodging the FIR was due to “constant threats” from the accused.<br /><br />Dismissing the doctor’s plea, Justice P K Bhasin upheld the magistrate’s order summoning him to face the trial on the victim’s complaint and referring the case to be tried by a sessions court. <br /><br />“In my view, the delay aspect would be a matter for consideration by the sessions court where the case already stands committed. The sessions court can examine whether the complainant had actually reported the incident of rape to the police in July, 2003 itself or not and also whether her version could be rejected even if no such complaint had been given by her to the police.<br /><br />“The magistrate was fully justified in passing the order on a prima facie view of the pre-summoning statement of the prosecutrix-complainant. According to the complainant’s statement she could not seek police assistance as she was under continuous threat to her life by the petitioner. This claim of the prosecutrix was sufficient to ignore the delay in her approaching the court for the purpose of taking cognisance and summoning the accused,” the court said.<br /><br />The court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the incident took place in 2003 but the complaint was filed only in 2009 and this delay should be considered to be a “good ground for throwing away” the complaint instead of the magistrate taking cognisance and summoning him.<br /><br />According to the complainant, she got married in 1998 and the accused used to visit her house for her husband’s treatment as he was his friend.<br /><br />She claimed she had an estranged relationship with her husband and in connivance with her husband, the doctor had raped her for more than a month in her own house in July 2003.<br /><br />She alleged she was assaulted and threatened by the accused as well as her husband. <br />The victim claimed that despite a complaint at Hari Nagar police, no action was taken against the doctor and her husband finally leading her to file a complaint case before the magistrate in 2009.<br /></p>