Remember the ‘Delhi ka Darinda’ Case in 2015? Sarvjeet Singh Bedi was labelled with several such names, after a woman named Jasleen Kaur accused him of molestation at a traffic signal in Delhi.
Four years later, in 2019, Singh was honourably acquitted by the Court.
However, in a recent development in the matter, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Singh demanding criminal enquiry against the complainant woman.
Court Dismisses Appeal For Action Against Con Rohtak Sisters As ‘Girls Have Also Suffered’
Background:
Jasleen Kaur, former St. Stephen’s College Student, had accused Sarvjeet Singh Bedi of harassing and abusing her at a traffic signal in Tilak Nagar, Delhi in the year 2015. Singh was booked under Sections 354A (sexual harassment) and 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) under Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Later, in 2019, the trial court had acquitted Singh in the matter, however, the young man by then, had lost his respect, reputation and career, due to media and social media trials before conviction. While acquitting Singh in 2019, the Court said,
Non-examination of eye-witnesses, who could have supported the case of the prosecution, cast a serious doubt on the prosecution’s case.
Singh, thus approached Court, to prosecute Kaur under Section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for allegedly giving false information, false evidence and making false charges against him during the trial.
Trial & Appellate Courts
According to both Trial and Appellate Courts, Singh’s application was dismissed since the Courts were of the opinion,
Mere Acquittal on benefit of doubt does not attract Section 195 IPC and other offences and the preliminary enquiry under section 340 Cr.P.C.
Now, in its order dated September 19, 2022, the Delhi High Court too, has upheld the two orders passed by both the lower courts, dismissing Singh’s appeal.
Convicted By Media; Acquitted By Court | Compilation Of News Reporting Videos In Sarvjeet Singh’s Case
Appeal by Petitioner (Singh)
The petitioner claims to be a victim of media trial in a frivolous complaint filed by the respondent no. 2 (Kaur). The eye-witnesses supported the case of the petitioner in their oral testimony and other credible and impeachable electronic evidence were also produced to support the version of the petitioner. The respondent no. 2 has committed offences punishable under sections 182/193/195/209/211 IPC against the petitioner.
The petitioner being aggrieved, filed the present petition and challenged the order dated 31.03.2021 passed by trial Court and judgment dated 28.02.2022 passed by the Appellate Court on the grounds that the Courts below have erred in passing the impugned orders/judgments without considering the material facts and circumstances of the case and have proceeded on an incorrect application of law.
The impugned orders/judgments have been passed in complete disregard of the provisions of law. The respondent no. 2 was legally bound by oath to state the truth during her testimony recorded on 01.12.2018, however, the respondent no. 2 made false statement in order to implicate the petitioner.
The respondent no. 2 has misused the law to her advantage. The petitioner was subjected to the media trial and his life has been completely ruined due to the acts of the respondent no.2. The petitioner has also challenged the impugned orders on other grounds as mentioned in the present petition. It was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the impugned order/judgment be set aside.
Sarvjeet Singh Acquitted After 4-Years | Nation Wants Arnab Goswami To Apologise For Calling Singh “Delhi Ka Darinda”
Delhi High Court
Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain expressed that Singh’s anxiety can be “very well understood” as the complainant had published the incident in the media and that might have caused loss of reputation to him. Justice Jain said,
However, the mere loss of reputation is not sufficient to attract the provisions under section 340 Cr.P.C.
Petitioner Can File For Defamation
The Delhi High Court suggested that Singh was at the liberty to initiate appropriate legal proceedings for defamation, allegedly caused by Kaur, by lodging an FIR or by invoking any other legal remedy. While dismissing his application under Section 340 CrPC read with Section 195 CrPC, the Court said,
The application under section 340 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable under the given facts and circumstances of the case.
Concluding the matter, Justice Jain added,
The trial Court while acquitting the petitioner, has not given any finding that the respondent no. 2 has made false statement on oath during the trial before the Court. The anxiety of the petitioner can be very well understood as the respondent no. 2 has published the incident in the media which might have caused loss of reputation to the petitioner.
Speaking with Voice For Men India, Amish Agarwala who represented Singh, expressed,
We disagree with the ruling of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and will be challenging it before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Immediately after acquittal, we had also filed a Civil Suit claiming compensation from the girl for false accusations, which is still pending adjudication, and we are hopeful of justice in both cases.
SARVJEET SINGH BEDI CASE | "Cannot Prosecute Jasleen Kaur U/s 340 CrPC; Singh Can File For Defamation": Read Delhi HC Order
— Voice For Men India (@voiceformenind) September 24, 2022
▪️HC: "Singh's anxiety can be well understood, but mere loss of reputation is not sufficient to attract Section 340 CrPC"https://t.co/K0KP2eA1KM
MUST WATCH: LATEST INTERVIEW AFTER DELHI HC ORDER
Sarvjeet Singh Bedi | Cant Prosecute Jasleen Kaur U/s 340 CrPC For Mere Loss Of Reputation: Delhi HC
ALSO WATCH:
Interview | Sarvjeet Singh Bedi (SEPTEMBER 2020)
Join our Facebook Group or follow us on social media by clicking on the icons below
If you find value in our work, you may choose to donate to Voice For Men Foundation via Milaap OR via UPI: voiceformenindia@hdfcbank (80G tax exemption applicable)
Follow Us
