Delhi High Court imposes fine of Rs. 40,000 on woman for "wasting its time"

New Delhi, October 2: By an order dated September 22, 2015, Justice Indermeet Kaur of Delhi High Court has imposed total costs of Rs. 40,000 (Rs. 20,000 each in two cases) on a woman, for filing two petitions challenging the grant of bail and validity of investigations carried out against three men, whom she had accused of rape and molestation.
The  Delhi HC observed that both these petitions (Crl. M.C. No.389/2014 and 1139/2014) were an abuse of the process of the Court and a wastage of its valuable time and accordingly, both these petitions were dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.20,000/- each.
In 2012, the woman had filed charges of rape against her live-in partner, after finding out that he was already married and had children. She claimed of entering into relationship with him in 2009 after he had made her a promise of marriage. The woman had also accused two other men of allegedly molesting her.
In her first petition, the woman had challenged the anticipatory bail granted to the man whom she had accused of rape. She submitted that the bail had been granted on a wrong premise and on incorrect factual submissions.
The second petition pleaded for re-investigation of the FIR, submitting that the investigation had not been carried out fairly and that, it was invalid.
The accused persons had submitted that the complainant had business dealings with them and had lodged a false complaint against them in order to extort money.
The High Court, however, observed that both the petitions filed by the woman amounted to mere abuse of the process of the Court and unnecessary delay. It was in view of these reasons that the aforesaid costs were imposed on her for wasting time of the Court.
The Bench also noted that the police charge-sheet had booked the “live-in partner” for rape while the other two had been charged with outraging her modesty. The trial court had also framed charges against the three men for the offences. “The investigation in this background suffers from no infirmity, This is clearly not a case where the petitioner has suffered prejudice.” the Court observed.