Delhi High Court Orders Enquiry Against Judges For Allegedly Attempting To Influence Woman Lawyer To Drop Rape Case

The Delhi High Court has ordered administrative inquiry action against two judicial officers of the national capital for their alleged role in influencing a young lawyer for influencing and coercing her to retract her allegations in a rape case filed against a lawyer.

“Before delving into the same, this Court considers it apposite to mention that it is conscious that considering the individuals involved, it is required to proceed with caution. This Court also considers it apposite to note that it was appalled to take notice of the involvement of judicial officers in a case of such nature,” Justice Amit Mahajan said.

The Court said that although the allegations were a matter of further investigation, they indicated a “flagrant lack of respect towards the criminal machinery.”

Justice Mahajan passed the order while cancelling the pre arrest bail granted to the lawyer accused of rape.

The 27 year old woman alleged that she went to the house of the accused, aged 51 years, for a party whereafter he forcibly established physical relations with her. She alleged that he assured to marry her stating that he was a widower.

As per the FIR, the lawyer continued to establish physical relations with her by emotionally blackmailing her. She alleged that she even got pregnant out of the said relationship.

The woman alleged that the accused maintained cordial relationships with certain Judicial Officers and that they had, prior to and even post the registration of the FIR, attempted to contact and influence her.

Her counsel submitted that the prosecutrix was contacted by a judge after registration of FIR who advised her not to go for her medical examination. He claimed that the judge offered monetary settlement to her to induce her to compromise the matter with the accused and had also informed her that he had kept a sum of Rs. 30 lakh to be paid to her.

He submitted that the concerned judge also coerced the prosecutrix to dilute the case in her statement and told her that the accused will compensate her further if she dilutes the case.

He placed reliance on several calls exchanged between the parties, claiming that they indicated that the prosecutrix was constantly being influenced.

Further, the woman alleged that another judge coerced her to retract her allegations against the accused and to falsely state in her statement that the FIR was lodged by mistake.

Her counsel submitted that the said judge also asked the prosecutrix to not oppose during the pre-arrest bail hearing of the accused.

Allowing the woman's plea, Justice Mahajan noted that the most glaring allegation of all was in regard to two Judicial Officers having attempted to influence the prosecutrix to dilute the case at the behest of the accused.

“While this Court does not consider it apposite to explicitly list all the incriminating portions of the conversation, however, ex facie, specific assertions of ₹30 lakhs in cash being kept for being paid to the prosecutrix are repeatedly made during the course of the conversation. The Judicial Officer–1 also offers job to the prosecutrix,” the Court said.

Further, the Court observed that the conversations of the woman with the second judge were brief and the same involved her elaborating about the incidents. The Court noted that the judge in question also mentioned that he was acquainted with both parties and asked as to how he can help.

“While the conversations will be subject to further enquiry, prima facie, unlike the conversation with Judicial Officer–1, the conversations with Judicial Officer–2 do not appear to reflect any explicit attempt at influencing the prosecutrix by way of monetary considerations or otherwise and appears to be a mere conversation a person would have with an acquaintance,” the Court said.

It was added that while there was nothing wrong in the impugned order of the trial court granting pre arrest bail to the accused, the Court cannot be a mute spectator to the evidence in the nature of audio recordings which indicated that a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs were attempted to be paid to the prosecutrix.

While cancelling the pre arrest bail, the Court ordered that one week period be granted to the accused to surrender before the trial court, noting that he remained on bail for over three months.

“An administrative enquiry into the conduct of the concerned judicial officers, who were in contact with the prosecutrix, is also warranted, and it is directed that appropriate action in accordance with law be taken in this regard,” the Court ordered.

Title: PJ v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1458

Click here to read order