IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Under Order XXII Rule 2(1)]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE
PETITION
(UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. OF 2025
[Arising out of Final Judgment and Order dated 25.12.2024 passed in
Criminal Appeal No. 482 of 2023 and Criminal Revision No. 34 of
2023 by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature for Delhi at New Delhi]
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Narendra Mehta …Petitioner

Versus

State of NCT & Anr.. …Respondent

WITH

CRL.M.P.NO. OF 2025

Application for Stay of the Proceedings before the Ld. Trial Court

CRL.M.P.NO. OF 2025

Application for Exemption from Personal Appearance of Petitioner

PAPER-BOOK

(KINDLY SEE INDEX INSIDE)

ADVOCATES FOR THE PETITIONER – AASHI, ADITI & APARNA

FILED ON:- 27.03.2025

DIARY NO. OF 2025.

1
 INDEX

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

S.NO. DT. OF RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PAGE(S)

1. Court Order Dated______________________________

2. Court Order Dated______________________________

3. Court Order Dated______________________________

4. Court Order Dated______________________________

5. Court Order Dated______________________________

6. Court Order Dated______________________________

7. Court Order Dated______________________________

8. Court Order Dated______________________________

9. Court Order Dated______________________________

10. Court Order Dated______________________________

2
 INDEX

Sl. No. Particulars Of Document Page No. of part to Remarks

which it belongs
Part-I Part-II
Contents Content
of The of the
Paper Paper
Book Book
(I) (II) (III) (IV) (V)

1.1 Court fee

1. Office Report on Limitation -A- -A-

2. Listing Proforma A1-A2 A1-A2

3. Cover Page of Paper Book A3

4. Index Of Record of A4
Proceedings
5. Limitation Report Prepared by A5
The Registry
6. Defect List A6
7. Note Sheet
8. Synopsis and List of Dates
9. IMPUGNED ORDER
Arising Out of Final Judgment
and Order Dated 25.12.2024
Passed in Criminal Appeal No.
482 Of 2023 And Criminal
Revision No. 34 of 2023
By The Hon’ble High Court of
Judicature for Delhi At New
Delhi
10. Special Leave Petition with
Avvidavit
3
 11. Appendix
12. Annexure P-1
A True Copy of The Circular
Dated 22.05.2020 And Bearing
No. 4/1/2020-Ir Issued by The
Office of The Director General
Of Civil
Aviation.
13. Annexure-P2
A True Copy of The Fir Bearing
No. 16/2021 Registered at Ps
Moti Nagar Under Sections
376(2)(N), 506, 509.
14. Annexure-P3
A True Copy of The Medical
Examination Report Dated
21.11.2021.
15. Annexure-P4
A True Copy of The Order
Dated 06.06.2023 Passed by
The Ld. Trial Court in
Sessions Case
No. /2023.
16. Annexure-P5
A True Copy of The Chargesheet
Arising Out of Fir Bearing No.
16/2021 Registered at Ps Moti
Nagar Under Sections
376(2)(N), 506, 509.
17. CRL. M.P. No. of 2025
Application for Exemption from
personal appearance of the
Petitioner i.e. Mr. Narendra

4
 Mehta
18. CRL. M.P. No. of 2025
Application for Exemption from
filing certified copy of the
impugned order
19. Filing Memo
20. Vakalatnama
21. Declaration

5
 A
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF: -

Narendra Mehta …Petitioner

Versus
State of NCT & Anr. …Respondent

INDEX OF FILING

SR. DESCRIPTION COPIES CT.

FEE
1. Listing Proforma 1+3
2. Synopsis & List of Dates 1+3
3. Impugned final judgement & order dated 15.12.2023 1+3
4. Special Leave Petition with Affidavit 1+3
5. Application for Exemption from filing official English 1+3
Translation
6. Vakalatnama & Memo of Appearance 1
Total Rs.

Drawn on: _______ Filed By:

Filed on: ________
Place: New Delhi

6
 A
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF: -

Narendra Mehta …Petitioner

Versus
State of NCT & Anr. …Respondent

OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION

1. The present Special Leave Petition is within time.

2. The petition is barred by time and there is delay of days in filing

the same against order dated and petition for condonation of

days’ delay has been filed.

3. There is delay of in refilling the petition and petition

for condonation of No days’ delay in refilling has been filed.

BRANCH OFFICER
New Delhi:
Dated: 27.03.2025

7
 PERFORMA FOR LISTING A1

Central Act (Title) CrPc & Indian Penal

Code
Section Section 376 (2)(n), 506,
509 of Indian Penal
Code
Central Rules: Rules NA
Rule No(s) NA
State Act (Title) NA
Section NA
State Rule (Title) NA
Rule No(s) NA
Impunged Interim Order NA
(Date)
Impunged Final Order/ 25.12.2024
Decree (Rule)
High Court (Name) Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi
Names of Judges Hon’ble Mr. Justice
ABC
Tribunal/ Authority NA
(Name)
Tribunal/ Authority NA
(Name)
1. Nature of Matter Criminal
2. Petitioner No. 1 Narendra Mehta
E-mail ID NA
Mobile Phone No. NA
3. Respondant No. 1 State of NCT Delhi
E-mail ID NA
Mobile Phone No. NA
4. Main Category 18
Classification
Sub Clssification 1807
5. Not to be listed before NA
6. Similar Disposed of Matter No Similar Matter Is
With Citation, If Any, & Disposed Off
Case Details
Similar Pending Matter No Similar Matter Is
with Case Details Pending

8
 7. Criminal Matters Yes
(a) Whether Accused/Convict No
Has Surrendered
(b) Fir No Fir Bearing No.
16/2021
(c) Police Station Registered By P.S Moti
Nagar U/S 376(2)(N),
506, 509 Of
The Indian Penal Code,
1860.
(d) Sentence Awarded No
(e) Period of sentence
undergone including
period of detention
custody
8. Land Acquisition NA
Matters
(a) Date Of Section 4 NA
Notification
(b) Date Of Section 6 NA
Notification
(c) Date Of Section 17 NA
Notification
9. Tax Matters: - State NA
The Tax Effect
10. Special Category First NA
Petitioner/Appellant Only)
Senior Citizen NA
Sc/St NA
Women/Child NA
Disabled NA
Legal Aid Case NA
In Custody NA
11. Vehicle Number (In Case NA
of Motor Accident Claim
Matters)

DATE: 27.03.2025
AOR FOR THE PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT

9
 SYNOPSIS

The present Special Leave Petition challenges the judgment dated 25.12.2024 passed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi [Hereinafter ‘Impugned Order’], which upheld the framing
of charges against the Petitioner under Section 376 of the IPC. The allegations originate from
a complaint filed by the prosecutrix over a year after the alleged incident, dated 13.11.2020.
According to the complainant, Mr. Narendra Mehta [Hereinafter ‘Petitioner’] allegedly
sexually assaulted her at her residence. However, the prosecution's case is marred by
inconsistencies, lack of corroborative evidence, and procedural irregularities. The Petitioner,
a well-reputed businessman, has presented an irrefutable alibi backed by travel records and
financial transactions, proving that he was at Delhi Airport from 10:50 AM to 3:55 PM on the
date of the alleged offense. Despite these exculpatory factors, the Hon’ble High Court upheld
the framing of charges without conducting a proper judicial assessment of the material on
record.
The FIR was lodged on 20.11.2021 more than a year after the alleged incident—without any
plausible explanation for the inordinate delay. This raises serious doubts regarding the
authenticity of the complaint. Additionally, the complainant’s statements recorded under
Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. contain material contradictions. Initially, she alleged multiple
instances of sexual assault, but later modified her statement to mention only three
occurrences. Moreover, no medical evidence supports her claims, as the medical examination,
conducted nearly a year after the alleged incident, found no physical or forensic traces of
assault. The Petitioner’s alibi is further substantiated by Paytm transactions, flight details, and
statements from eyewitnesses confirming his presence at the airport. Furthermore, it appears
that the allegations stem from extraneous considerations, particularly a financial dispute
involving the Petitioner and third parties.
Despite these glaring inconsistencies and the absence of substantive evidence, the Hon’ble
High Court failed to exercise its judicial discretion appropriately and dismissed the
Petitioner’s plea for quashing the charges under Section 227 Cr.P.C. The law mandates that
charges should only be framed if the material on record prima facie discloses a case against
the accused. However, in the present case, the prosecution’s case is built solely on
uncorroborated allegations without any medical, forensic, or independent witness testimony.
The Hon’ble High Court erred in mechanically upholding the charges without judicially
assessing whether the available evidence could sustain a conviction. As held in numerous
10
precedents, the trial court must carefully sift through the evidence at the stage of framing
charges to determine if the material is sufficient to proceed with a trial. A mere suspicion,
particularly one based on inconclusive or contradictory material, does not justify the framing
of charges.
It is also well-established that an offense must be made out on the face of the allegations
before charges are framed. If the allegations, even when accepted at face value, do not
constitute an offense, the accused must be discharged. In the present case, the prosecution’s
broad and unsubstantiated claims lack the necessary foundational evidence to establish the
essential ingredients of the alleged offense. The Hon’ble High Court overlooked this
fundamental requirement, allowing the case to proceed despite the absence of credible
supporting material. The prosecution has failed to corroborate its claims with medical reports,
call data records, or eyewitness testimonies, yet the charges have been upheld without a
critical judicial evaluation. This oversight has resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice.
The Hon’ble High Court also failed to take cognizance of the fact that the complaint appears
to be motivated by extraneous factors. The complainant had outstanding financial obligations
towards the Petitioner, and the timing of the FIR filed after the Petitioner initiated legal
proceedings to recover his dues indicates malafide intent. The misuse of criminal law to settle
civil disputes is a growing concern, and courts are duty-bound to prevent such abuse of
process. The prosecution's reliance on circumstantial evidence does not meet the settled
principle that such evidence must conclusively establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The
Hon’ble High Court ignored this critical aspect and allowed the trial to proceed based on
conjecture rather than substantive proof.
Further, the Petitioner’s alibi is not only plausible but is backed by concrete documentary
evidence, including flight records, financial transactions, and witness testimonies. When an
alibi is strongly supported by material evidence, the prosecution bears the burden of
disproving it. However, in this case, no counter-evidence has been presented to rebut the
Petitioner’s alibi. Instead of considering these factors, the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the
Petitioner’s plea, ignoring well-settled legal principles regarding alibis in criminal cases.
Moreover, the prosecution has failed to establish the existence of Savita, the alleged
intermediary who supposedly introduced the complainant to the Petitioner. The absence of
any verification of this key witness casts serious doubts on the credibility of the complainant’s
allegations.
This case exemplifies malicious prosecution arising from a financial dispute. The Petitioner

11
had initiated legal proceedings to recover ₹2.8 crores from certain individuals, and the present
allegations were made only after he pursued his claims. The timing and nature of the
complaint suggest that criminal law is being misused as a tool for retaliation. The Hon’ble
High Court, despite having the authority to quash baseless proceedings under Section 482
Cr.P.C., failed to intervene to prevent the abuse of the judicial process. In cases where the
allegations are wholly unsubstantiated, courts must exercise their inherent powers to prevent
undue harassment of the accused.
The continued prosecution of the Petitioner violates his fundamental right to life and liberty
under Article 21 of the Constitution. Wrongful criminal prosecution not only tarnishes an
individual’s reputation but also subjects them to unnecessary mental and financial hardship.
The Hon’ble High Court failed to uphold the Petitioner’s constitutional rights and allowed a
baseless case to proceed, thereby exposing the Petitioner to unwarranted criminal prosecution.
Furthermore, the Hon’ble High Court erred in rejecting the Petitioner’s plea for quashing the
proceedings despite the complete absence of forensic or electronic evidence placing him at
the scene of the alleged crime. No call data records, DNA evidence, or mobile location
tracking support the complainant’s version of events. In the absence of such critical evidence,
proceeding with the trial would amount to a miscarriage of justice.
Even so, the Respondent State has failed to place the instant case at the very threshold of
establishing a prima facie case against the Accused in lieu of the plea of Alibi, and the
therefore the Impugned Order is untenable under the law.

Hence the present Special Leave Petition

LIST OF DATES & EVENTS

DATE PARTICULARS

12.10.2010 The accused, proprietor of Shrine Computer, a renowned

software firm, lent an amount of Rs. 1,16,00,000/-
(Rupees One Crore and Sixteen lakhs Only) to one Amit
Bankhede and Manohar Birla vide RTGS dated
12.10.2010 and bearing No.987654 and
cheque dated 12.10.2010 and bearing No.123456

12
2010-2019 Mr. Amit Bankhede and Manohar Birla introduced the
accused to one Ramesh Bappu, a self-proclaimed
godman who, out of his own free will, agreed to act as a
guarantor of Amit Bankhede and Manohar Birla in case
of any default in repayment of the amount so lent to them.
However, Mr. Ramesh Bappu sought a loan of Rs.
1,30,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore and Thirty Lakhs
Only) in return. The accused extended a loan to Mr.
Ramesh Bappu to the tune of Rs. 1,30,00,000/- (Rupees
One Crore and Thirty Lakhs
Only).
2020 The accused called upon Mr. Amit Bankhede and Manohar
Birla along with Mr. Ramesh Bappu to repay the loan so
availed by them. However, the accused was surprised to
witness the unwillingness of Mr. Amit Bankhede,
Manohar Birla and Ramesh Bappu to repay the loan. The
three debtors further threatened the Accused of dire
consequences if he
sought the repayment of his rightful money.
2020 The accused aggrieved by the non-repayment of his rightful
money and constant threats splashed upon him was left
with no option but to resort to the criminal machinery of
the State seeking redressal of his dispute. Therefore, the
accused lodged and FIR bearing No. /2020 under sections
406, 420, 506 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 registered
at P.S Vadodara.
13.11.2020 Amit Bhankhede, along with Manohar Birla took the
accused from Surat to Patna via Delhi, stating that Ramesh
Bappu was selling a piece of land in Patna and he would
clear all the debts. In hopes of his return of his money the
accused agreed to travel to Patna along with the Debtors.
The accused along with other two debtors, took the Indigo
airlines flight number 6E5035 from Surat to Delhi at 9.15

13
 AM which landed in Delhi at 10.50 Am on Terminal T3 of
Indira Gandhi International Airport. Thereafter, the accused
boarded another Spice jet flight to Patna at
3.55 PM. Records of the financial transactions
statement dated 13.11.2020 show that the accused has
made multiple digital transactions at 12.32 pm on the said
date at Taste of India and at 1.15 PM at Tiffin Express,
Located at T-3 of the airport.
It is further pertinent to mention the aforementioned travel
was undertaken during the onset of the COVID- 19
Pandemic and the travel was hereby subjected to travel
restrictions imposed by the Ministry of Civil Aviation,
Government of India, vide Circular dated 22.05.2020 and
bearing No. 4/1/2020-IR issued by the Office of the
Director General of Civil Aviation. The restrictions
imposed during the Pandemic disallowed any transit
passenger to make an exit from the airport while waiting for
the next connecting flight. It was therefore impossible for
the accused to exit the airport much less than visiting
Santoshi Mata Temple or any other place.
A true copy of the Circular dated 22.05.2020 and bearing
No. 4/1/2020-IR issued by the Office of the Director
General of Civil Aviation is annexed herewith
and marked as ANNEXURE-P1
20.11.2021 The Prosecutrix approached PS Moti Nagar, alleging that
the Accused had given her false hopes of marriage and
had raped her. She further alleged that she was a guard at
Santoshi Mata temple and was introduced to the Accused
by her friend Savita in 2017. It was further alleged that on
13.11.2020, when the Accused came to Delhi and met
her, he insisted on a cup of tea at the house of the
Prosecutrix. She further alleged that thereafter the accused
raped her and assured her that he will marry her. He

14
 repeated the same on multiple occasions. She further
alleged that on 13.10.2021, she visited Vadodara where she
was ill-treated by the Accused and threatened to be killed if
she disclosed anything about the Accused or visited his
office ever again.
A true copy of the FIR bearing No. 16/2021 registered at
PS Moti Nagar is annexed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE-P2.
21.11.2021 The prosecutrix was taken for medical examination
by a registered medical practitioner. However, the
prosecutrix denied internal examination of her person and
the same is recorded in MLC bearing No. 7476/2021.
A true copy of the MLC bearing No.7476/2021 and
dated 21.11.2021 is annexed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE- P3.
01.01.2022 The accused was granted Anticipatory Bail by the Ld.
Trial Court vide its order dated 01.01.2021.

20.01.2022 Chargesheet dated 20.01.2021 in FIR bearing No.

16/2021 registered at PS Moti Nagar was presented before
the Ld. Trial Court.
06.06.2023 The Accused preferred an application under section 227 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking discharge in
the case arising out of FIR bearing No. 16/2021 registered
at PS Moti Nagar. However, the Ld. Trial Court was
pleased to discharge the accused only for an offence under
section 509 of the Indian Penal Code,1860. The Ld. Trial
Court was pleased to commit the accused to trial for
offences under section 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860.
A true copy of the Order dated 06.06.2023 is annexed
herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-P4.

15
25.12.2024 The Accused aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Trial Court
dated 06.06.2023 depriving the accused of the relief of
discharge approached The Hon’ble High Court of
Judicature for Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal
No. 482 of 2023 and Criminal Revision No. 34 of 2023,
however, The Hon’ble High Court vide its impugned order
dated 25.12.2024 was pleased to dismiss Criminal Appeal
No. 482 of 2023 and
Criminal Revision No. 34 of 2023.
Hence, the present Special Leave Petition.

16
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN

CRLMC 482 OF 2023, CRLREV 34 OF 2023

25.12.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

NARENDRA MEHTA Through Counsel of SLS N

Versus
State of NCT and ANR Through APP

Quorum: Justice ABC

Judgement

1. Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the Order dated

06.06.2023, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari

Courts, dismissing the Petition filed by the Petitioner herein under Section

227 of the Cr.P.C seeking discharge from the charge-sheet in FIR No.16/2021,

dated 20.11.2021, registered at Police Station Moti Nagar for offences under

Sections 376/506/509 IPC, and framing charges against the Petitioner for

offences under Sections 376(2)(n) IPC and 506 IPC along with quashing of

the aforesaid FIR and Chargesheet

2. The facts, in brief, leading to the present Petition, are that the present FIR

was registered on the complaint of the Respondent No.2 herein who stated

that she used to work as a guard in Santoshi Mata Mandir. It is stated that

she became friends with one Savita in 2017, who told the Prosecutrix about

the Petitioner herein. It is stated that when the Petitioner visited Delhi,

Savita introduced him to the Prosecutrix. It is stated that the Petitioner

17
 asked the Prosecutrix to invite him to her house. It is further stated that one

day when the Prosecutrix was outside the temple, the Petitioner herein asked

her that he wants to come to her house for having tea. It is stated that the

Petitioner came to the house of the Prosecutrix and finding the Prosecutrix

alone, the Petitioner herein committed rape on the Prosecutrix. It is stated

that the Petitioner herein promised marriage to the Prosecutrix and asked

her not to tell anyone about the incident. It is stated that after the incident,

the Petitioner came to Delhi twice and on both the occasions, he made

physical relations with the Prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage. It is stated

that the last such act was committed by the Petitioner on 13.11.2020, when

the Petitioner came to the house of the Prosecutrix and made physical

relations with her. It is further stated that during lockdown, the Petitioner

herein stopped talking with the Prosecutrix and coming to Delhi. It is stated

that on 31.10.2021, the Prosecutrix reached Ahmedabad to meet the

Petitioner at his office. It is stated that the Petitioner stopped her outside his

office and threatened her with dire consequences. It is stated that on coming

back to Delhi, the Prosecutrix lodged the complaint against the Petitioner

herein and the present FIR was registered.

3. It is stated that during the course of investigation, medical examination of

the Prosecutrix was done vide MLC No.7476/2021, however, the Prosecutrix

refused to undergo internal examination. It is stated that on 22.01.2022 the

statement of the Prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C was recorded.

18
anticipatory bail to the Petitioner herein. It is stated that the Petitioner joined

investigation on 07.01.2022 and his medical examination was conducted.

1. It is stated that during further investigation, Notice under Section 92 Cr.P.C.

was served to get the CDR, CAF and location of the Petitioner and the

Prosecutrix. Material on record discloses that on analysis of the CDR, CAF

and location of the Petitioner and the Prosecutrix, no contact between the

Petitioner and the Prosecutrix was found. It is stated that investigation was

carried out to get the details of Savita from the Santoshi Mata Mandir, but no

details could be found as the register was destroyed. It is further stated that

during investigation the details from airlines has also been verified and it

was found that on 13.11.2020, the Petitioner herein along with one Ramesh

Bappu Amit Bankhede and Manohar Birla came to Delhi by flight from Surat.

It is stated that the statements of Ramesh Bappu Amit Bankhede and Manohar

Birla were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C wherein they stated that after

coming to Delhi the Petitioner was not with them and he went somewhere.

In their statements both Amit Bankhede and Manohar Birla have stated that

they along with the Petitioner herein reached Delhi on 13.11.2020 at about

11 AM and they had a flight to Patna at about 3:55 PM on the very same day.

It is stated that while Amit Bankhede and Manohar Birla stayed back at the

Delhi Airport, the Petitioner herein went somewhere stating that he has to

meet someone. It is stated that the Petitioner returned after some time and

then all the three boarded the flight for Patna at 03:55 PM. It is

19
 stated that in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, the son of the Prosecutrix

has stated that the Petitioner knew the Prosecutrix.

2. It is stated that after the completion of the investigation, a chargesheet under

Sections 376/506/509 IPC has been filed.

3. Petitioner filed an application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C before the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, seeking discharge from

the charge- sheet. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide Order dated

06.06.2023 dismissed the application of the Petitioner herein by holding that

a prima facie case under Sections 376(2)(n) IPC and 506 IPC is made out

against the Petitioner. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge

discharged the Petitioner of offences under Section 509 IPC.

4. It is stated that the Petitioner filed an application before the Trial Court

seeking anticipatory bail. The Trial Court vide Order dated 05.01.2022

granted

20
 anticipatory bail to the Petitioner herein. It is stated that the Petitioner joined

investigation on 07.01.2022 and his medical examination was conducted.

5. It is stated that during further investigation, Notice under Section 92 Cr.P.C.

was served to get the CDR, CAF and location of the Petitioner and the

Prosecutrix. Material on record discloses that on analysis of the CDR, CAF

and location of the Petitioner and the Prosecutrix, no contact between the

Petitioner and the Prosecutrix was found. It is stated that investigation was

carried out to get the details of Savita from the Santoshi Mata Mandir, but no

details could be found as the register was destroyed. It is further stated that

during investigation the details from airlines has also been verified and it

was found that on 13.11.2020, the Petitioner herein along with one Ramesh

Bappu Amit Bankhede and Manohar Birla came to Delhi by flight from Surat.

It is stated that the statements of Ramesh Bappu Amit Bankhede and Manohar

Birla were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C wherein they stated that after

coming to Delhi the Petitioner was not with them and he went somewhere.

In their statements both Amit Bankhede and Manohar Birla have stated that

they along with the Petitioner herein reached Delhi on 13.11.2020 at about

11 AM and they had a flight to Patna at about 3:55 PM on the very same day.

It is stated that while Amit Bankhede and Manohar Birla stayed back at the

Delhi Airport, the Petitioner herein went somewhere stating that he has to

meet someone. It is stated that the Petitioner returned after some time and

then all the three boarded the flight for Patna at 03:55 PM. It is

21
 stated that in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, the son of the Prosecutrix

has stated that the Petitioner knew the Prosecutrix.

6. It is stated that after the completion of the investigation, a chargesheet under

Sections 376/506/509 IPC has been filed.

7. Petitioner filed an application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C before the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, seeking discharge from

the charge- sheet. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide Order dated

06.06.2023 dismissed the application of the Petitioner herein by holding

that a prima facie case under Sections 376(2)(n) IPC and 506 IPC is made out

against the Petitioner. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge

discharged the Petitioner of offences under Section 509 IPC.

8. It is this Order which has been challenged in the present Petition.

9. APP for the State and the learned Counsel for the Prosecutrix state that while

exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C and while considering an

Order rejecting to discharge an accused, the Court must be cautious. They

state that the statement of the Prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. coupled

with the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C of Amit Bankhede and Manohar

Birla, who accompanied the Petitioner to Patna, shows that the Petitioner

was not with them between 11:00 AM -03:55 PM and he had told them that

he has to meet someone makes out a prima facie case against the Petitioner

and, therefore, there is no

22
 infirmity in the Order passed by the learned Additional. At this Juncture it is

relevant to examine the power of the High Court to quash the proceedings:-

In G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P 2 this Court cautioned that: “8. Jurisdiction under Section

482 of the Code has to be exercised with great care. In exercise of its jurisdiction the

High Court is not to examine the matter superficially. It is to be seen if a matter, which

is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal

proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before the issuing

process, a criminal court has to exercise much caution. For the accused, it is a serious

matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to

exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section

must be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure

the ends of justice

10. Power of this Court under 482 Cr.PC rests on the pillar of Social Justice

wherein this court is vested with high responsibility to ensure that an accused

who is prima facie innocent shall not be made to face the wrath of criminal

prosecution. Criminal prosecution not only hamper an individual's

fundamental rights but creates an undesirable societal situation. The accused

who may be acquitted is not accepted in the same light in society even after

establishing his innocence. Therefore, the High Court is vested with the high

responsibility of ensuring that the innocent does not face the wrath of

prosecution. However, at the same time, Courts shall not leave the string of

fair investigation and social justice. The yardstick of fair investigation and

securing the safety and security of the victims shall be the paramount

consideration. Hence, the court shall carefully examine the facts and

circumstances of each case to reach on the conclusion of quashing of the

23
 criminal proceedings. The Courts should apply the golden test of whether

case prima-facie establishes the innocent of the accused or trial is needed to

establish the innocence.

11. Applying the law laid down by the Apex Court to the facts of the present case,

this Court does not find any infirmity in the Order dated 06.06.2023, passed by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge wherein the learned Additional Sessions

Judge has held that there are two witnesses who have deposed that the Petitioner

had left the airport in Delhi and the fact that payments were made by the Petitioner

at the Airport do not suggest his presence at the airport. In any event, this Court

can take judicial notice of the fact that between 11:00 AM to 02:00 PM, the

Petitioner could have left the airport and could have come back from the house

of the Prosecutrix and it cannot be said that it is improbable or impossible. The

statement of the Prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. coupled with the statement

under Section 161 Cr.P.C of Amit Bankhede and Manohar Birla, who

accompanied the Petitioner to Patna, and the statement of the son of the

Prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C wherein he has stated that the Petitioner and

Prosecutrix knew each other, makes out a case of grave suspicion against the

Petitioner that the Petitioner could have committed the offence. The case of alibi

as argued will have to stand in the trial. However, this court deems fit that Section

376 2(n) IPC shall not be applicable, and the charge under 376 IPC is to be framed

in trial along with other charges.

12. No other argument other than the case of alibi was contended by the learned

Counsel for the Petitioner. The correctness or otherwise of the

transactions
24
 25

undertaken by the Petitioner on 13.11.2020 at the airport is again a matter of trial

and need not be decided at this juncture.

13. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the Order

dated 06.06.2023.

14. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed, along with pending application(s), if

any.

25
 26

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Under Order XXII Rule 2(1)]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
(UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. OF 2025
[Arising out of Final Judgment and Order dated 25.12.2024 passed in
Criminal Appeal No. 482 of 2023 and Criminal Revision No. 34 of
2023 by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature for Delhi at New Delhi]
IN THE MATTER OF: -
Narendra Mehta …Petitioner

Versus

State of NCT & Anr. …Respondent

IN THE MATTER OF: POSITION OF PARTIES

Before the In the High Before this

Trial Court Court Hon'ble Court
Narendra Mehta, Accused Appellant Petitioner
Aged About 48 Years,
Male, Hindu, Residing at
VERSUS
State of NCT & Anr. Complainant Respondent Respondent

TO

HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE

AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE
PETITIONER ABOVE NAME

26
 27

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the instant Special Leave Petition [‘SLP’] is being filed

challenging the Final Judgment and Order dated 25.12.2024
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 482 of 2023 and Criminal
Revision No. 34 of 2023 by the Hon’ble High Court of
Judicature for Delhi at New Delhi wherein the Hon’ble High
Court was pleased to dismiss the Criminal Appeal & Revision of
the Petitioner against the Order dated 06.06.2023 passed by the
Ld. Trial Court in Criminal Case No. of 2023, whereby the
accused was denied the relief of discharge for offences under
Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
was committed to trial.

2. QUESTION OF LAW:

A. Whether the High Court, while passing the impugned judgment,

failed to adhere to the precedent laid by this Hon’ble Court for
framing of charges?

B. Whether or not the statement of the victim can be relied as a

prima-facie case to establish charges under Section 376 IPC?

C. Whether the High Court has erred in rejecting the quashing

petition and revision petition ignoring plea of alibi?

3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 2(2):

That the petitioner states that he has not filed any other Special Leave
Petition against the aforesaid impugned Final Judgement and Order
dated 25.12.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 482 of 2023 and
Criminal Revision No. 34 of 2023 by the Hon’ble High Court of
Judicature for Delhi at New Delhi
27
 28

4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 4:

The Petitioner submits that Annexure P-1 to P-5 produced along

with the Special Leave Petition are true copies/true translated copies
of the pleadings/ documents which formed part of the records of the case in
the petition against whose orders Leave to Appeal is sought in this Petition.

5. GROUNDS:
Leave to Appeal is sought for on the following amongst other
grounds:
ISSUE 1:
A. Because the Hon’ble High Court, while passing the impugned
judgment, failed to adhere to the well-established principles laid
down by this Hon’ble Court regarding the framing of charges. It is a
settled proposition of law that at the stage of framing of charge, the
court must determine whether the material on record prima facie
discloses a case against the accused. However, the Hon’ble High
Court has overlooked the lack of substantive evidence against the
Petitioner, warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court.
B. Because the Hon’ble High Court failed to appreciate that at the stage
of framing of charge under Section 227, CrPC, the trial judge must
apply a judicial mind and not act as a mere post office for the
prosecution. A strong suspicion must be based on substantive
material and not mere conjecture. If the evidence on record is
insufficient or unreliable to sustain a conviction, the accused must be
discharged. The High Court, however, mechanically upheld the
framing of charges without applying this settled principle.
C. Because the Hon’ble High Court overlooked the fundamental
requirement that the prosecution must establish the essential
ingredients of the offence before charges can be framed. If the
28
 29
allegations, even when taken at face value, do not disclose the
commission of an offence, the court is duty-bound to discharge the
accused. In the present case, the prosecution’s case is based on broad
assertions lacking cogent supporting material. Instead of subjecting
the allegations to proper legal scrutiny, the High Court upheld the
framing of charges, causing grave prejudice to the Petitioner.
D. Because the Hon’ble High Court failed to assess whether the material
on record prima facie disclosed a case against the Petitioner. The
prosecution’s case is based solely on uncorroborated allegations,
with no supporting medical evidence, call records, or independent
witness testimony. The statements of prosecution witnesses do not
establish the presence of the Petitioner at the alleged place of
occurrence. Despite this, the High Court upheld the framing of
charges without properly evaluating whether the essential
ingredients of the offence were met.
E. Because the Hon’ble High Court failed to consider that the complaint
is driven by extraneous considerations, relying solely on the
prosecutrix’s allegations without any corroboration. The credibility
of key witnesses is also compromised due to pre-existing financial
obligations towards the Petitioner, casting serious doubt on the
fairness of their deposition.
F. Because the framing of charges cannot be done merely on suspicion
or inconclusive material. The trial court is required to sift through the
evidence and assess whether there exists a prima facie case
warranting trial. A charge cannot be framed if the material on record
fails to disclose a reasonable link between the accused and the
alleged offence. In the present case, the prosecution’s allegations
lack corroboration, and the material relied upon does not meet the
legal threshold required for framing of charges. Despite this, the
Hon’ble High Court disregarded these settled principles and
mechanically upheld the prosecution's case, necessitating
29
 30
interference by this Hon’ble Court.
G. Because the Hon’ble High Court failed to appreciate that the case
rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. The conclusions drawn by
the High Court while rejecting the revision petition disregard the
settled principle that guilt based on circumstantial evidence must be
fully established and must be conclusive in nature.
H. Because the Hon’ble High Court erred in failing to determine
whether the material on record was sufficient to sustain the
prosecution and mechanically upheld the framing of charges. An
accused cannot be made to face trial in the absence of sufficient
material linking them to the alleged offence.

ISSUE 2:

I. Because under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

(Cr.P.C.), an accused must be discharged if the evidence on record
does not establish a prima facie case. At the stage of framing charges,
suspicion must arise from concrete material and not from mere
conjecture. A charge can only be framed when there exists strong
suspicion leading to a reasonable presumption of guilt, and in the
absence of such material, proceeding with the trial would be unjust.
The prosecution has based its entire case solely on the victim’s
statement without any corroborative evidence, making the charges
against the petitioner unsustainable.
J. Because the petitioner has established an irrefutable alibi, supported
by official travel records and financial transactions, proving that he
was at Delhi Airport from 10:50 AM to 3:55 PM on 13.11.2020,
making it impossible for him to have committed the alleged offence
during that time. When an accused furnishes an alibi backed by
documentary evidence, the prosecution must provide counter-
evidence to disprove it. The presence of verified flight tickets, Paytm

30
 31
transactions at airport restaurants, and witness testimonies
confirming the petitioner’s presence at the airport leaves no room for
any presumption of guilt. In the absence of any rebuttal from the
prosecution, the alibi must be accepted, and the charges must be
quashed.
K. Because the prosecutrix’s statements under Section 161 and Section
164 Cr.P.C. suffer from material contradictions, making them
unreliable for framing charges. When the primary witness gives
multiple versions of the same incident, her testimony must be
approached with extreme caution. The prosecutrix initially alleged
that the petitioner had raped her multiple times, but in her subsequent
statements, she referred to only three instances, significantly
weakening the reliability of her claims. The absence of consistency
in the victim’s version of events creates doubt, and a case that lacks
certainty in its foundation cannot be the basis for criminal
prosecution.
L. Because the delay of over one year in lodging the FIR under Section
154 Cr.P.C. raises serious doubts regarding the authenticity of the
complaint. The alleged offence occurred on 13.11.2020, yet the FIR
was lodged only on 20.11.2021, without any reasonable explanation.
While a delay in sexual offence cases does not automatically
discredit the victim’s claims, an unexplained delay casts suspicion
on the veracity of the allegations. A prolonged delay, particularly
where the victim had ample opportunity to report the incident,
suggests the possibility of an afterthought, thereby diminishing the
credibility of the prosecution’s case.
M. Because the medical evidence does not support the allegations of
rape. The medical examination conducted on 14.11.2021, nearly a
year after the alleged incident, found no external or internal injuries.
Additionally, the prosecutrix refused to undergo an internal medical
examination, preventing any forensic confirmation of sexual assault.
31
 32
When medical evidence does not align with the allegations, and there
is no other supporting material, the charges should not proceed to
trial. The absence of any physical injuries or forensic traces of assault
contradicts the claim of non-consensual intercourse, further
weakening the prosecution’s case.
N. Because the prosecution has failed to establish the existence of
Savita, the alleged intermediary who introduced the petitioner to the
prosecutrix. When a key witness is central to establishing the
foundational facts of the case, the inability to locate or verify that
witness raises substantial doubts. The entire case relies on the claim
that Savita facilitated the petitioner’s acquaintance with the
prosecutrix, but if no such person can be traced, the credibility of the
victim’s version becomes highly questionable. The failure of the
investigating authorities to verify the existence of this crucial witness
exposes a major inconsistency in the prosecution’s narrative.
O. Because the financial dispute between the petitioner and third parties
suggests a malicious motive behind the FIR, rendering the
prosecution’s case unreliable. The petitioner had initiated legal
proceedings to recover ₹2.8 crores from Amit Bhankhede and
Manohar Birla, and the rape allegations surfaced only after he
pursued his financial claims. The filing of a criminal case as a
retaliatory measure in a pre-existing financial dispute is an abuse of
process. Where an FIR appears to be lodged not as a genuine pursuit
of justice but as a pressure tactic, the court must intervene to prevent
its misuse. Criminal law should not be used to settle business
disputes, and in cases where extraneous considerations influence the
filing of an FIR, the charges should not be allowed to stand.
P. Because no forensic or electronic evidence supports the
prosecution’s claims. In cases involving serious allegations, forensic
and electronic evidence play a critical role in corroborating the
prosecution’s case. Despite the grave nature of the accusations, no
32
 33
DNA evidence, call records, or mobile location data have been
submitted to establish the petitioner’s presence at the alleged crime
scene. Call data records of both the petitioner and the prosecutrix do
not indicate any communication between them, and the mobile
location records contradict the claim that the petitioner visited her
residence on the day of the alleged offence. The absence of such
evidence, particularly when it could have been easily obtained,
renders the prosecution’s case unreliable.
Q. Because the case does not meet the legal test for framing of charges
under Section 228 Cr.P.C., which requires the court to determine
whether sufficient grounds exist for proceeding against the accused.
A charge can only be framed if the evidence, when taken at face
value, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Where the evidence does
not lead to a reasonable presumption of guilt, it would be unjust to
put the accused on trial. The present case lacks corroborative
material, relies solely on an inconsistent statement by the
prosecutrix, and stands contradicted by the petitioner’s strong alibi
and absence of forensic support. Proceeding with the trial in such
circumstances would amount to an abuse of the criminal justice
process.

ISSUE 3:

R. Because the Hon'ble High Court erred in ignoring the fundamental

principle of alibi, which was supported by strong and unimpeachable
documentary evidence. The petitioner was at a different location at
the time of the alleged incident, as evidenced by his flight records,
financial transactions at Indira Gandhi International Airport, and
statements from co-passengers. The High Court failed to appreciate
this crucial evidence, thereby violating the settled legal principles
regarding the consideration of alibi. An alibi, when supported by

33
 34
cogent evidence, must be disproven by the prosecution beyond a
reasonable doubt, and the failure to do so weakens the foundation of
the case against the accused
S. Because once an accused successfully establishes an alibi, the burden
shifts to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
accused was present at the crime scene. The Hon’ble High Court
failed to acknowledge this legal standard and instead presumed that
the accused could have left the airport without any supporting
evidence. The legal system does not permit convictions based on
possibilities or assumptions, particularly when clear documentary
evidence contradicts the prosecution's case. The approach of
disregarding conclusive evidence and relying on speculation goes
against established legal principles.
T. Because the Hon’ble High Court failed to appreciate the fact that the
Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India, imposed
restrictions during the COVID-19 Pandemic and disallowed any
transit passenger to make an exit from the airport while waiting for
the next connecting flight. It was therefore impossible for the
accused to exit the airport much less than visiting any other place.
U. Because the prosecution’s case is based solely on uncorroborated
testimony, with no independent or circumstantial evidence
supporting the allegations. There is no medical report indicating
injuries, no forensic evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged
crime scene, and no eyewitnesses confirming his presence at the
alleged location. Moreover, a significant portion of the prosecution's
case relies on hearsay statements, which lack evidentiary value and
cannot be the basis for conviction. Criminal trials must be based on
reliable, verifiable evidence rather than mere allegations.
V. Because the complainant’s statements regarding the circumstances
of the alleged offense are contradictory. She initially claimed that her
friend Savita introduced her to the petitioner outside a temple,
34
 35
whereas during her medical examination, she stated that the
petitioner was a friend of her late husband. Furthermore, no records
of Savita’s presence have been found, raising serious doubts about
the veracity of the complainant’s statements. Such inconsistencies in
key details undermine the credibility of the prosecution and create
reasonable doubt regarding the allegations.
W. Because the present case appears to be a clear instance of malicious
prosecution arising out of a financial dispute. The petitioner, a
reputed businessman, had extended a substantial loan to individuals
who failed to repay the amount despite multiple assurances. Instead
of fulfilling their financial obligations, they deliberately misled the
petitioner, making him wait and travel to various locations under
false pretenses to recover his money. When legal action for recovery
was initiated, a criminal case was fabricated against the petitioner to
pressurize him into withdrawing his legitimate claims. Criminal law
should not be misused as a tool to settle civil disputes, and cases filed
with ulterior motives should not be allowed to continue.
X. Because the Hon’ble High Court failed to exercise its inherent
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of
law. The criminal justice system must not be used as an instrument
of harassment or retribution. Despite the overwhelming evidence
pointing to the absence of a prima facie case against the petitioner,
the High Court refused to quash the proceedings, leading to grave
injustice. Cases instituted for extraneous reasons, lacking substantial
merit, should be quashed at the earliest stage to prevent undue
harassment.
Y. Because the continued prosecution of the petitioner is a direct
violation of his fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21
of the Constitution of India. Wrongful criminal prosecution not only
tarnishes the reputation of the accused but also subjects him to
unnecessary mental and financial hardship. The Hon’ble High Court
35
 36
failed in its duty to protect the petitioner’s rights and allowed a
baseless case to proceed without considering its far-reaching
implications. The right to a fair trial includes protection from
unwarranted prosecution, and legal safeguards must be effectively
implemented to prevent miscarriage of justice.
Z. Because it is a well-established principle that summoning an accused
in a criminal case is a serious matter and should not be done
mechanically without careful judicial scrutiny. The Hon’ble High
Court and the trial court failed to conduct a thorough examination of
the available evidence before framing charges. The proceedings
against the petitioner, if allowed to continue, would amount to a
gross miscarriage of justice. Criminal trials should be initiated only
when a prima facie case exists, and courts must prevent misuse of
the judicial.
6. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:
A. Because, the Petitioner has strong prima- facie case and there
is highly likelihood that the present petition shall be allowed
by the Hon’ble Court.
B. Because, the balance of convenience is in favour of the
petitioner and against the Respondent.
C. Because the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss as he will get
caught into rigmarole of criminal prosecution.

7. MAIN PRAYER:
The petitioner most respectfully prays that:
A. Grant Special Leave to Appeal against the final judgement and order
dated 25.12.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 482 of 2023 and
Criminal Revision No. 34 of 2023 by the Hon’ble High Court of
Judicature for Delhi at New Delhi.
B. Pass such further or other Orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit
& proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
36
 37
8. PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF:
A. Grant interim relief to the petitioner by staying the proceedings
of the trial court which was upheld as per the Impugned Order
dated 25.12.2024 passed by the Hon’ble High Court.
B. Pass any other and/or directions as this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER IS

DUTY BOUND AND SHALL EVER PRAY

DRAWN & FILED BY:

(Advocate for the Petitioner)

Filed On: 27.03.2025

37
 38
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. ________ OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:

Narendra Mehta

….Petitioner

VERSUS

State of NCT & Anr.

….Respondent

CERTIFICATE

Certified that the Special Leave Petition is confirmed only to the pleadings before the
Court/ Tribunal whose order is challenged and other documents relied upon in those
proceedings. No additional facts, documents or grounds have been taken therein or
relied upon in the Special Leave Petition. It is further certified that the copies of the
documents/Annexures attached to the Special Leave Petition are necessary to answer
the question of law raised in the petition or to make out grounds urged in the Special
Leave Petition for the consideration of this Hon’ble Court. This certificate is given on
the basis of the instructions given by the petitioner/ person authorized by the petitioner
whose affidavit is filed in support of the Special Leave Petition.

_________________________

Advocate for the Petitioner

Filed On: 27.03.2025

38
 39

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. ________ OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:

Narendra Mehta ….Petitioner

VERSUS

State of NCT & Anr. ….Respondent

AFFIDAVIT

I, Narendra Mehta, aged about 57 years, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: -

1. That I am complainant in the aforesaid matter and I am fully conversant with the facts &
circumstances of above-mentioned case, hence competent to swear this affidavit.

2. That the accompanying Synopsis and List of Dates, Special Leave Petition Paras 1 to, have
been drafted under my instructions. I have understood the contents therein which are true
to my knowledge.

3. That the annexure P to P is the true copy of their respective originals.

DEPONANT

VERIFICATION

I, the deponent above named do hereby verify that the contents of paras 1 to 3 of the present
affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and nothing material has
been concealed therefrom. Verified at New Delhi on this 27th day of March 2025.

DEPONANT

39
 40

APPENDIX

INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

Section 376. Punishment for rape.

(1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for in sub-section (2), commits rape, shall be
punished with rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which [shall not be
less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable
to fine]

(Subs. by Act 22 of 2018, s. 4, for “shall not be less than seven years, but which may extend
to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine” (w.e.f. 21-4-2018)

(2) Whoever, -

(a) being a police officer, commits rape—

(i) within the limits of the police station to which such police officer is appointed;
or

(ii) in the premises of any station house; or

(iii) on a woman in such police officer's custody or in the custody of a police officer
subordinate to such police officer; or

(b) being a public servant, commits rape on a woman in such public servant's custody or
in the custody of a public servant subordinate to such public servant; or

(c) being a member of the armed forces deployed in an area by the Central or a State
Government commits rape in such area; or

(d) being on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand home or other place of
custody established by or under any law for the time being in force or of a women's or
children's institution, commits rape on any inmate of such jail, remand home, place or
institution; or

(e) being on the management or on the staff of a hospital, commits rape on a woman in

40
 41
that hospital; or

(f) being a relative, guardian or teacher of, or a person in a position of trust or authority
towards the woman, commits rape on such woman; or

(g) commits rape during communal or sectarian violence; or

(h) commits rape on a woman knowing her to be pregnant; or

(i) commits rape on a woman when she is under sixteen years of age; or

(j) commits rape, on a woman incapable of giving consent; or

(k) being in a position of control or dominance over a woman, commits rape on such
woman; or

(l) commits rape on a woman suffering from mental or physical disability; or

(m) while committing rape causes grievous bodily harm or maims or disfigures or
endangers the life of a woman; or

(n) commits rape repeatedly on the same woman,

shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten
years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for
the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation.— For the purposes of this sub-section, —

(a)"armed forces" means the naval, military and air forces and includes any member of the
Armed Forces constituted under any law for the time being in force, including the
paramilitary forces and any auxiliary forces that are under the control of the Central
Government or the State Government;

(b)"hospital" means the precincts of the hospital and includes the precincts of any
institution for the reception and treatment of persons during convalescence or of persons
requiring medical attention or rehabilitation;

(c)"police officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to the expression "police"
under the Police Act, 1861 (5 of 1861);

41
 42
(d)"women's or children's institution" means an institution, whether called an orphanage
or a home for neglected women or children or a widow's home or an institution called by
any other name, which is established and maintained for the reception and care of women
or children.

(3) Whoever, commits rape on a woman under sixteen years of age shall be punished with
rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which
may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of
that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine:

Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses and
rehabilitation of the victim:

Provided further that any fine imposed under this sub-section shall be paid to the victim
Section 506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.
Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprison-ment of
either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;
If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.— And if the threat be to cause death or grievous
hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with
death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years,
or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973

Section 154. Information in cognizable cases.
(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an
officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction,
and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or
reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof
shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may
prescribe in this behalf:
[Provided that if the information is given by the woman against whom an offence under section
326A, section 326B, section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D,
42
 43
section 376, 2[section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section
376DA, section 376DB], section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is
alleged to have been committed or attempted, then such information shall be recorded, by a
woman police officer or any woman officer:
Provided further that—
(a) in the event that the person against whom an offence under section 354, section 354A,
section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 376, 1[section 376A, section 376AB,
section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB], section 376E
or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed
or attempted, is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, then such
information shall be recorded by a police officer, at the residence of the person seeking
to report such offence or at a convenient place of such person’s choice, in the presence
of an interpreter or a special educator, as the case may be;
(b) the recording of such information shall be video graphed;
(c) the police officer shall get the statement of the person recorded by a Judicial Magistrate
under clause (a) of sub-section (5A) of section 164 as soon as possible.]
(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of
cost, to the informant.
(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to
record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information,
in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such
information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case
himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the
manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge
of the police station in relation to that offence.
Section 161. Examination of witnesses by police.
(1) Any police officer making an investigation under this Chapter, or any police officer not below
such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf,
acting on the requisition of such officer, may examine orally any person supposed to be
acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.
(2) Such person shall be bound to answer truly all questions relating to such case put to him by
43
 44
such officer, other than questions the answers to which would have a tendency to expose him to
a criminal charge or to a or forfeiture.
(3) The police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of an
examination under this section; and if he does so, he shall make a separate and true record of the
statement of each such person whose statement he records.
[Provided that statement made under this sub-section may also be recorded by audio-video
electronic means:]
[Provided further that the statement of a woman against whom an offence under section 354,
section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 376, 3[section 376A, section
376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB], section
376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed or
attempted shall be recorded, by a woman police officer or any woman officer.]
Section 164. Recording of confessions and statements.
(1) Any Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate may, whether or not he has jurisdiction
in the case, record any confession or statement made to him in the course of an investigation
under this Chapter or under any other law for the time being in force, or at any time afterwards
before the commencement of the inquiry or trial:
[Provided that any confession or statement made under this sub-section may also be recorded by
audio-video electronic means in the presence of the advocate of the person accused of an offence:
Provided further that no confession shall be recorded by a police officer on whom any power of
a Magistrate has been conferred under any law for the time being in force.]
(2) The Magistrate shall, before recording any such confession, explain to the person making it
that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, it may be used as evidence
against him; and the Magistrate shall not record any such confession unless, upon questioning
the person making it, he has reason to believe that it is being made voluntarily.
(3) If at any time before the confession is recorded, the person appearing before the Magistrate
states that he is not willing to make the confession, the Magistrate shall not authorise the
detention of such person in police custody.
(4) Any such confession shall be recorded in the manner provided in section 281 for recording
the examination of an accused person and shall be signed by the person making the confession;
and the Magistrate shall make a memorandum at the foot of such record to the following effect:-
44
 45
“I have explained to (name) that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, any
confession he may make may be used as evidence against him and I believe that this confession
was voluntarily made. It was taken in my presence and hearing, and was read over to the person
making it and admitted by him to be correct, and it contains a full and true account of the
statement made by him. (Signed) A. B. Magistrate.”
(5) Any statement (other than a confession) made under sub-section (1) shall be recorded in such
manner hereinafter provided for the recording of evidence as is, in the opinion of the Magistrate,
best fitted to the circumstances of the case; and the Magistrate shall have power to administer
oath to the person whose statement is so recorded.
[(5A)
(a) In cases punishable under section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section
354D, sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 376, 3[section 376A, section 376AB,
section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB,] section 376E
or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the Judicial Magistrate shall record
the statement of the person against whom such offence has been committed in the manner
prescribed in sub-section (5), as soon as the commission of the offence is brought to the
notice of the police:
Provided that if the person making the statement is temporarily or permanently mentally or
physically disabled, the Magistrate shall take the assistance of an interpreter or a special educator
in recording the statement:
Provided further that if the person making the statement is temporarily or permanently mentally
or physically disabled, the statement made by the person, with the assistance of an interpreter or
a special educator, shall be video graphed.
(b) A statement recorded under clause (a) of a person, who is temporarily or permanently
mentally or physically disabled, shall be considered a statement in lieu of examination-
in-chief, as specified in section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) such
that the maker of the statement can be cross-examined on such statement, without the need
for recording the same at the time of trial.]
(6) The Magistrate recording a confession or statement under this section shall forward it to the
Magistrate by whom the case is to be inquired into or tried.

45
 46
Section 227. Discharge.
If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after
hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers
that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the
accused and record his reasons for so doing.
Section 228. Framing of charge.
(1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is
ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which—
(a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against the
accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, 3[or any
other Judicial Magistrate of the first class and direct the accused to appear before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, or, as the case may be, the Judicial Magistrate of the first class, on
such date as he deems fit, and thereupon such Magistrate] shall try the offence in
accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant-cases instituted on a police report;
(b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.
(2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the charge shall be
read and explained to the accused and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the
offence charged or claims to be tried.
Section 482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court.
Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to
make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent
abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
Article 21. Protection of life and personal liberty
No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law.

46
 47
ANNEXURE 1

47
 48

48
 49

49
 50

50
 51

51
 52

52
 53

53
 54

54
 55

55
 56

56
 57

57
 58

58
 59

59
 60

60
 61

61
 62

62
 63

63
 64

64
 65

ANNEXURE-P2 6

TRANS LATED COPY

FIRST INFORMATION REPORT

(Under Section 154 Cr.P.C.)

I. Distt. WEST DELHI P.S. MOTI NAGAR Year:2021 FIR.No.16 Date:20/11/2021

2. Act(s) Section(s)
(ii) -IPC 1860 376/506/509

3. Occurrence of offence

(d) Day Wednesday Date From:. Date to:

Time Period Time From: Time To:

(e) Information received at P.S. Date 20/J 1/2021 Time 23:42 hrs

(I) General Diary Reference Entry No.078/\ Date/Time 20/11/2021 23:42 hrs.

4. Type of Information: WRITT'EN

S. Place of Occurrence:
(d) Direction and Distance from P.S Beal o.0
(e) Address: in front of H. o.29/10. Near ShIV Mandir, Block-99. 3 RD floor
(f) In case, Outside the limit of the Police Station
ame of P.S. District:

6. COMPLAINANT/INFORMANT
(a) Name
(b) Date/Year of Birth: Nationality: INDIA

65
 66

(c) Passport No. Date of Issue Place of Issue

(d) Occupation
(t) ADDRESS:

7. Details of Know/Suspect/Unknown accused with full particulars (attach

separate sheet if necessary):

-
8. Reasons for delay in reporting by the complainant /informant:

NO DELAY

9. Particulars of properties stolen /involved (Attach separate sheet, if necessary)

SL. o. Property Type (Description) Est. Value(Rs.) Status

I 0. Total value of property stolen

11. Inquest Report/U.D. Case No. if any

12. F.I.R Contents (attach separate sheet if required)

To, the SHO Saheb, Moti Nagar, PS Delhi, it is

requested that as follows that

I also have a daughter who is married. After

death of my husband, to run her household, she

worked as a guard at the Jail Road Santoshi

66
 67

Mata Mandir temple. In 201 7, I became friends

with Savita, who told me about Narendra

Mehta. He used to come and go to Delhi, During

this time, when Narendra Mehta came to

Delhi, Savita introduced me to Narendra Mehta

outside the temple, Narendra Mehta met me, then

startedasking me to invite him to his house, I

said, come and

have tea with Savita, but one day when I was

outside the temple. Narendra started saying,

1 will go to your house for tea, then on Lhe

same day Narendra me came to my house when I was

alone at home, seeing the opportunity, he

forcibly grabbed me and started kissing me and

held me hard and had physical relations with me,

I I was very scared, Narendra scared me and

said that I will marry you, don't tell anything

to anyone, then after that Narendra came to

Delhi twice and came to my house and had

physical relations with me. The last time he

came on 13 November 2020 and we After some time,

due to lockdown, Narendra stopped talking to

67
 68

me and coming to Delhi, at that time I became very

upset and started living in tension. One day on

31 October 2021, when I myself reached Ahmedabad to

meet Narendra at his office address B-9 Kapoor

Nagar, Ahmedabad, Guj rat ( Shrine Computer),

Narendra stopped me outside and abused me. He

started talking to me and threatened me saying

leave from here today itself otherwise I will kill

you, don't you dare to come in front of me

again, after this incident I got very scared, I

came to Delhi the very next day. I started

feeling tense, I complained of migraine, since

then I have decided to take legal action against this

Narendra, hence, it is a humble request to you sir

that my life and property should be protected and

I should get justice. Your kind words. Hogi, Sd-

/Hindi

Narender Mehta,

68
 69

10

Narender M.No.987654321, To The Duty

officer Police Station Moti Nagar It is

submitted that today on Dated 20/11/2021 the

complainant

came to the police station and

handed over a complaint wherein she has leveled

allegation of Rape, sexual harassment and

threatening of dire consequence against

Narendra.After that the complainant was got

counseled by CIC counselor and was senl to

Acharyashree Bhikshu Hospital, Moti Nagar for

medical Examination under the custody of W/CL.

Rajbala, 1973/W along with CIC counsellor. That

as per the content and gist of the complaint and

counseling report prima facie offense U/S

376/506/509 IPC is made out. Hence a case be

registered and investigation be handed over to

me. Date and time of offence- about one year

ago: Place of offence-

69
 70

H. o.29/10. Near ShIV Mandir, Block-99. 3 RD floor.

70
 71

11

Date and Time of Presenting written Note-

20/11/2021 at. 23.30 Hrs- Sd English WPS

Himangi, D-6392 PIS No. 16190260 PS Moli Nagar

Date 20/11/2021 Proceedings Police AJ Police

Station, Case No. 16/21 U/S 376 I 506 I 509

IPC
IPC PS Moti Nagar under its supervision CCTNS
.,.r
OPP. W/CT POONAM NO. FIR has been registered

from number 1784/W. The copy of the FIR was

handed over to W/PSI Shivangi sir and the

documents will be sent to the senior officers by

post. Submitted by HC/DO.

)3 Action Taken Since the above information reveals

commission of offence (s) U/s mentioned at item

No.2

(i) Registered the case and took up the

investigation

(ii) Directed (Name of the I.O:)SIVANGI

SI (SUB-INSPECTOR)
No:16190260 to take up the investigation OR

71
 72
(iii) Refused investigation due to OR

72
 73

ANNEXURE-P3 12

Medical Examination Report

Date: 14.11.2021
Time : 01.25 AM

The victim was brought to the hospital by the Police officer after the Counselling was
done on 13.11.2021. She has been externally examined and no signs of injury or any
external wounds were found. The victim denied internal examination. It is informed
that the victim is 56 years old and already has a son of around 29 and a daughter of 31.
She informed me that her husband had died. It was also mentioned that she had been
raped by Narendra Mehta. She informed me that Narendra Mehta was her late
husband’s friend. She has complained only about migraine and stress. There are no
other internal or external injuries.

Doctor
******
IC2348

73
 74
ANNEXURE P4
BEFORE THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF
NARENDRA MEHTA
….PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF NCT AND ANR.
….RESPONDANT

…….

74
 75

26

presence of accused at the airpo1t. Legal notice issued to Amit Bhankhede

and Manohar Birla
demanding the repayment of dishonored cheque sent by the ac�used are stressed.
Complaint filed by the accused against the. Amit, Manohar Birla and
Ramesh Bappu in the police authority and further complaints filed before
Ld. N1M are also emphasized. It is also stated that call records do not highlight
change of location of accused. Further the complaint is also submitted to be
vague and bearing inconsistencies and it is submitted that prima facie case
is not made against the accused of having committed the alleged offence but
it is made out that he is implicated falsely, hence he is liable to be discharged.

5. This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the contentions made.

6. The complaint filed against the named persons befor e the police authority
and the complaint cases. only show that ltwo material witness in the
present case i.e. Amit Bhankhede and Manhor Birla
have interest in the outcome of the proceedings.
Whether the a�cused had sufficient time to leave the airp01t and to commit
the offence or if he let the airport are the f
subject matter of trial. At this stage, it is not required to be examined if the accused
could be convicted on the basis of prop0sed evidence and the Court has to take
only a prima facie view. Prosecutrix is the most material witness in the case of
rape. Her testimony cannot be

75
 76

27

threatened to kill her. On this complaint filed by pro�cutrix, F� was registered

\
and during investigation, the prosecutrix wa\
'\ medically
examined and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C was ·,-..
recorded and boarding passes, Paytm details as handed over by the accused were
verified and it is found that on 13.11.2020, he came at Delhi by flight at 10.50 am
and thereafter boarded flight for Patna at
3.55 pm and Amit Bankhede and Manohar Birlawho came
at Delhi with the accused on that day, were examined who stated to IO that
accused went out of the airport after reaching at Delhi. It is argued by Ld. Addi.
PP for State that the time period between two flights was long enough where
accused was able to reach to the prosecutrix and commit the offence of rape,
therefore at present, there is sufficient material to frame the charge against the
accused for the offence punishable under Section 376/506/509 IPC.

1. On the other hand, it is argued on behalf of the accused and also submitted
through the application praying for discharge that FIR is the attempt to
pressurize the accused so that he may be stopped to pursue his legal right of
recovery against Amit Bhankhede and Manohar Birla who owe approx 2.8
crore from the accused and further duration between two flights was insufficient
where accused could leave airport (as on the date of alleged offence
i.e. 13.11.2020, due to Covid restrictions every passenger had to report 2 hours
prior to the boarding time of the flight) vacate the lodge, then step out of the
airport and reach to house of complainant to commit the offence of rape and came
back. Further bills regarding the purchase of food articles have been verified
which show the

76
 77

77
 78

ANNEXURE P5

78
 79

17

NARENDRA MEHRA

79
 80

18

FIR is false indicate action taken or proposed to be taken

u/s 182/211 IPC:

Result of Laboratory Analysis: N/A

16. Brief facts of the case (Add Separate sheet, in

necessary):

Sir,

Facts of the case are as follows that on dated

20/11/21, Victim R came to the police station and told to

PSI Rani about her sexual assault and presented a written

complaint. The contents of the complaint are as follows: -

“To, the SHO, Moti Nagar PS Delhi. Sir, kind request is as

follows that I, Shilpa Di it wife of Late Sh. Ravi address H.

No. 5/10, Near New Shiv Mandir, Block 9, Third floor

where I reside with my son. I have a daughter too who is

married. After the death of my husband, I work as guard

at Santoshi Mata Mandir, Jail Road for livelihood.

In 217, I became friend with Savita who

said me about Narendra Mehta. Narendra Mehta used to come

Delhi. During that time, Narendra Mehta came to

80
 81

19

Delhi and then met Savita outside of temple. Narendra Mehta

after meeting me, started inviting me to home. I said that you

please come with Savita for a tea but one day when I was at

outside of temple, Narendra Mehta said me let’s go to your

house for tea. Then same day, Narendra Mehta came to my

house. That I was alone at home, then on getting chance, he

grabbed me forcefully and started kissing me and held me

tight and have sex with me. I was so scared. Narendra Mehta

scared me and told that I will marry you, do not anything to

anyone. After that Narendra Mehta came to Delhi twice and

had Physical intercourse with me. Last time he came on 13

November 2020 and we had physical relations. After some

time due to Lockdown, Narendra Mehta stopped talking to me

and coming to Delhi. Then I was very tensed and began to

worry. One day on 31 October 2021, I went myself to meet

Narendra Mehta in his Office at Ahmadabad at address B-

39, Kapoor Nagar-2, Ahmadabad, Gujrat

(Shrine Computer), then Narendra Mehta

stopped me outside and stared abusing me and threatened

that go back today

81
 82

20

itself otherwise I will kill you, you do not dare to come in front

of me again. I became very scared after this incident and

returned back to Delhi next day. After that I used to remain

tensed and suffered with migraine. From then I decided to

take legal action against Narendra Mehta. Hence, it is

requested that my life and liberty may kindly be saved and

justice me made with me. I will be thankful to you.” That PSI

Shivani got counseling of Victim done by CIC Counselor and

got the counseling report. After that the victim was sent to

ABG hospital in the protection of W/ct Rajbala 1973/W

where doctor got the medical examination of victim done

vide MLC No. 7476/21. That during the examination, UPT of

victim was found negative and victim refused to done her

internal medical examination. That as per the contents of the

complaint, offence Under Section 376/506/509 IPC made out

and PSI Shivangi prepared a report and presented the same

before DO and got the FIR registered and conducted the

investigation.

82
 83

21

Date 22/11/22 PSI got statement of Victim recorded

Under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. at MM, Reliever

MM. that the copy of statement Under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is

attached and map of spot was prepared on demarcation

of prosecutrix R.

That in the case, Ld ASJ Tis Hazari Court has allowed the

anticipatory bail of the accused. Thereafter, the accused was

give notice to join the investigation on 07/01/22. That on

07/01/22, the accused Narendra Mehta Joind the

investigation in the present case. That during the

interrogation, the accused denied the allegations leveled by

prosecutrix and told that it is done to trap me, I do not know

anyone in Delhi, and nor I met with any lady in Delhi on

13/11/2020. On 13/11/2020, I was in flight with Ramesh

Bappu Amit Bankhede and Manohar Birla . That our flight took

off at 09:15 AM from Surat to Delhi and at 10:50 AM, we

reached at Delhi and after that we are at airport. I

purchased food and drink at airport at 12:32 PM, 01:15 PM

and 02:13 PM and paid by Paytm after that all we three board

to flight going from

83
 84

22

Delhi to Patna 3:55 PM and went to Patna. I never went out

of Delhi Airport on 13/11/2020 and nor met with victim. And

told that the entire allegation leveled against me are wrong.

After that I SI arrested formally the accused and followed the

directions of the Hon’ble Court that Shreyas given surety for

bail of Accused Narendra Mehta. During the arrest, all the

directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court were followed. That

after, I SI, got Medical examination and potency

examination of accused done at GGS hospital vide MLC No.

75971/22 in which Doctor said that “there is nothing to

suggest that above said patient cannot perform sexual

activity/ sexual abuse”

During the investigation, sent notices to concerned

offices for verification of boarding pass and paytm details,

reply of which are attached. That the presented documents

were found genuine. That it was found after the reply of

airline that on 13/11/2020, the accused Narendra Mehta,

Ramesh Bappu Amit Bankhede and Manohar Birla

84
 85

23

all three came Delhi from Surat by flight which reached at

10:55 AM at Delhi and went by boarding flight from Delhi to

Patna at 3:55 PM.

That during the investigation, certified CDR of accused

contact no. 1 34567 said by victim and contact of victim

no. 76543 1, Location chart and CAF documents were

received and after examining the CDR, no contact of accused

and victim was found. Apart from this, investigation was

conducted at Santoshi Mata Mandir, Jail Road for available

details of Victim’s friend Savita, on which no details of

Victim’s Friend Savita was found due to register destroy.

During the investigation, the son of victim namely Arun

Sharma was examined in which the version of victim was

corroborated and as per his saying, statement Under Section

161 Cr.P.C. was recorded and on 13/11/2020 both the

persons namely Amit and Manohar arrived in Delhi with

accused and Ramesh Bappu

85
 86

24

Amit Bankhede and Manohar Birla were examined and they both

said that on 13/11/2020 all they three came to Delhi But

after arriving on Delhi Airport, Narendra Mehta went

somewhere and accused was not present with both of

them at airport. That regarding this the statement of Ramesh

Bappu was recorded Under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. During the

investigation, the statements of witnesses were recorded.

That after recording deposition under Section 161,164 Cr.P.C and the

allegation of the victim that the accused is charged under Section

376/504/506 of IPC

86
 87

I.A. 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[ORDER XXII RULE 2 (1)]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
SPECIAL LEAVE TO PETITION (CRL) NO. _____ OF 2025
(Against the Final Order dated 25.12.2024 in Criminal Revision Petition no. 34 of 2023
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi)

IN THE MATTER OF:

Narendra Mehta
… Petitioner
VERSUS
State Of NCT Delhi & Anr.
… Respondents

APPLICATION FOR STAY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. TRIAL

COURT.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
1. That the Petitioner has filed the accompanying Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the
judgment and order dated 25.12.2025 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in RP
No. 34 of 2024, whereby the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to refuse the quashing of
FIR No.16/2021, registered at Police Station Moti Nagar, under Sections 376(2)(n), 506
IPC, and instead directed that the trial be continued before the Learned Trial Court.
2. That the present case arises out of a malicious and false prosecution initiated by
Respondent at the behest of certain individuals with whom the Petitioner had a financial
dispute. The FIR in question was filed nearly one year after the alleged incident, raising
serious doubts about its authenticity.
3. That the Hon’ble High Court has failed to appreciate the prima facie exculpatory
evidence available on record, including the Petitioner’s travel details, Paytm
transactions, and documentary evidence proving his presence elsewhere during the

87
 88
alleged incident. The Hon’ble High Court has merely proceeded on conjectures and
assumptions, thereby allowing a miscarriage of justice to continue.
4. That grave prejudice and irreparable loss shall be caused to the Petitioner if the
proceedings before the Learned Trial Court are not stayed, as he will be forced to face
trial in a case where the foundational basis of the allegations is manifestly false.
5. That it is settled law that when a matter is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, proceedings before the subordinate courts ought to be stayed to prevent
conflicting findings and unnecessary harassment of the Petitioner.
6. That the balance of convenience is wholly in favor of the Petitioner as the continuation
of the trial will lead to unnecessary financial, mental, and reputational damage, whereas
staying the proceedings will not cause any prejudice to the Respondents.
7. That the Petitioner has a strong prima facie case and substantial questions of law are
involved, which require the indulgence of this Hon’ble Court.
8. That in the interest of justice, equity, and fair play, it is imperative that the proceedings
before the Learned Trial Court be stayed until the disposal of the present Special Leave
Petition.

PRAYER
In light of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the Petitioner most respectfully prays
that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
a) Stay the proceedings before the Learned Trial Court in case FIR No. ___/16/21, P.S. ___,
pending disposal of the present Special Leave Petition;
b) Pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
interest of justice.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL
EVER PRAY.

DRAWN & FILED BY

ADVOCATES FOR THE PETITIONER

88
 89

I.A. 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[ORDER XXII RULE 2 (1)]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
SPECIAL LEAVE TO PETITION (CRL) NO. _____ OF 2025
(Against the Final Order dated 25.12.2024 in Criminal Revision Petition no. 34 of 2023
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi)

IN THE MATTER OF:

Narendra Mehta
… Petitioner
VERSUS
State Of NCT Delhi & Anr.
… Respondents

APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE

PETITIONER
MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
1. That the Petitioner has filed the accompanying Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the
judgment and order dated 25.12.2025 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in RP
No. 34 of 2024, whereby the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to refuse the quashing of
FIR No.16/2021, registered at Police Station Moti Nagar, under Sections 376(2)(n), 506
IPC, and instead directed that the trial be continued before the Learned Trial Court.
2. That the Petitioner is a permanent resident of Vadodara, Gujarat, and it is extremely
difficult for him to appear personally before the Trial Court in Delhi for each and every
hearing. Due to his professional and personal obligations, frequent travel to Delhi
would cause undue hardship and financial burden.

89
 90
3. That the Petitioner undertakes to be represented by his duly authorized counsel in all
proceedings before the Learned Trial Court and shall appear in person whenever
specifically directed by the Hon’ble Court.
4. That the Hon’ble Courts have time and again recognized that personal appearance can
be dispensed with when the presence of the accused is not essential and when the
accused is not likely to abscond or misuse the exemption.
5. That the exemption from personal appearance will not cause any prejudice to the
Respondents, as the Petitioner is willing to participate in the proceedings through his
legal representatives.
6. That in view of the above, it is in the interest of justice that this Hon’ble Court grants
exemption from personal appearance to the Petitioner.

PRAYER
In light of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the Petitioner most respectfully prays
that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
a) Exempt the Petitioner from personal appearance before the Learned Trial Court in case FIR
No. 16/2021, P.S. Moti Nagar, pending disposal of the present Special Leave Petition;
c) Pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
interest of justice.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL
EVER PRAY.

DRAWN & FILED BY

ADVOCATES FOR THE PETITIONER

90