The St Stephens College student Jasleen Kaur accused Sarvjeet Singh of sexual harassment and abuse at a traffic light in Delhi in 2015, however, the Delhi High Court rejected his request for a criminal investigation [Sarvjeet Singh v State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr].
When significant media coverage of the event, Singh was finally found not guilty of all counts in 2019 after the judge granted him the benefit of the doubt.
He then filed a motion with the trial court asking for a criminal investigation of Kaur for allegedly providing fraudulent testimony and information. However, the lower courts rejected his application and appeal.
Singh appealed these decisions to the High Court, claiming that the lower courts had erred by making the decisions without taking into account relevant facts and circumstances and by applying the law incorrectly.
However, Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain ruled that the trial court’s and the appellate court’s rulings correctly held that Singh’s simple acquittal after being given the benefit of the doubt does not subject him to Section 195 of the Indian Penal Code (faking evidence) or other offenses, nor does it trigger the preliminary investigation that is envisioned by Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
“The trial Court has not provided any conclusion that respondent No. 2 has made a false statement under oath during the trial before the Court,” Justice Jain said. The trial court had previously cleared the petitioner.
The Court did note that Singh’s worry was understandable given that Kaur had made the event public in the media, potentially harming Singh’s image.
Singh is free to file a defamation case, the Court observed, but a simple loss of reputation is not enough to trigger the provisions of Section 340 CrPC.
“The current petition is rejected for lack of merit. However, the petitioner is free to file the current FIR in line with the law or pursue any other legal remedy that is specified by the law to begin the necessary legal processes for the claimed defamation that respondent no. 2 inflicted against the petitioner. The case’s facts and circumstances do not support the application made according to Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code. You can see when The Delhi High Court On The Misery of the Homeless