The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed charges framed under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act against a woman who was originally the complainant in a gang-rape case that later turned into an extortion investigation. Justice Manisha Batra, hearing the revision petition, kept the extortion charge against her co-accused intact even while granting this partial relief.
Background of the Case
The matter goes back to September 2015, when an FIR was registered at Police Station Banur on a woman's complaint that she was picked up near Sector 43, Chandigarh, taken to a house in Banur, and subjected to gang rape by multiple men. The FIR was initially registered under Sections 376-D and 342 of the IPC.
However, the police investigation took an entirely different turn. The challan eventually filed claimed that the woman had gone with the accused voluntarily and that the physical relations were consensual. It further alleged that she, along with her husband, and others including petitioner Ajaib Singh, had tried to extort money from the accused persons' families by threatening to press the rape case. Ajaib Singh was accused of demanding Rs 4 lakh from the mother of one of the accused and receiving Rs 1 lakh from his sister and Rs 5,000 from another relative.
Based on this version, police filed charges under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and Sections 384 and 120-B of the IPC. The trial court framed charges accordingly in February 2018, and later dismissed the petitioners' applications seeking discharge - a decision that led both accused to move the High Court.
Court's Observations
Examining the charges under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, the Court noted that Sections 4 and 5 apply only when a person lives off the earnings of another woman's prostitution, or induces another woman into it. Since the allegation here was that the woman herself had participated, the Court held these provisions simply did not fit the facts.
The judgment observed:
"A charge cannot be sustained merely because the investigating agency has mentioned a particular penal provision in the challan, when the facts alleged, even if taken at their face value, do not constitute the ingredients of that offence."
On the extortion charge against Ajaib Singh, however, the Court took a different view, pointing to statements and electronic evidence on record supporting the allegation of a monetary demand. It noted:
"The allegation against petitioner No.1, therefore, prima facie discloses the ingredients of an offence under Section 384 IPC."
Decision
The High Court partly allowed the revision petition. Charges under Sections 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act against the woman were quashed.
The charge under Section 384 IPC against Ajaib Singh was upheld, and the charges under Section 120-B read with Section 384 IPC against the woman were also left undisturbed.
The trial court has been directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Ajaib Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and others
- Case Number: CRR-944-2018 (O&M)
- Judge: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra
- Decision Date: 14.09.2026
-300x169.webp)
