Suspended Delhi official to face trial for minor’s sexual assault

The case had stemmed from a complaint filed by the minor in August 2023, alleging that the official had sexually assaulted her multiple times between November 2020 and January 2021, when she was in his care at his residence in Burari.

The Delhi High Court has refused to quash the charges framed against suspended Delhi government official Premoday Khakha in a case involving allegations of sexual assault and molestation of a 16-year-old girl.

The Delhi High Court has refused to quash the charges framed against suspended Delhi government official Premoday Khakha in a case involving allegations of sexual assault. (FILE)

The case had stemmed from a complaint filed by the minor in August 2023, alleging that Khakha had sexually assaulted her multiple times between November 2020 and January 2021, when she was in his care at his residence in Burari. She further alleged that she had revealed about the same to family members. Khakha’s wife, she alleged, subsequently administered abortion pills to her for terminating a pregnancy.

The trial court in September and October last year framed charges against the former officer under various provisions of Indian Penal Code (IPC) including rape, voluntarily causing hurt, sexual assault, and Section 6/8 (penetrative sexual assault) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act, 2012.

The court had also framed charges against his wife Seema Rani under IPC for instigating the rape and penetrative sexual assault, causing miscarriage, and disappearance of evidence. Furthermore, the court had also charged his two children and wife under Section 21 of Pocso Act for failure to report offence despite having knowledge.

In November 2024, Khakha along with his wife and children had approached the high court seeking to quash the charges, asserting that the evidence did not prima facie disclose the commission of the offence including the sexual assault and miscarriage, and that the investigation was inconclusive.

They further submitted that Khakha was not capable of impregnating the minor since he had undergone vasectomy in 2005 and the sessions court had committed an error in further proceeding against them.

The Delhi Police, on the contrary, asserted that the order was well-reasoned, and did not suffer from legal infirmity.

Affirming the police’s contention, a bench of justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in her July 15 order, released on Monday, said that the trial court order did not suffer from legal infirmity or perversity.

“In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no perversity or legal infirmity in the order passed by the learned Sessions Court framing charges against the petitioner Premodya Khakha,” the order maintained.

The court also shot down Khakha’s contention that his vasectomy rendered him ineligible to impregnate, saying, “Given this legal presumption, and the admitted failure to obtain the semen sample, the learned Sessions Court, in this Court’s opinion, was justified in holding that whether or not the petitioner is actually incapable of reproduction is a matter that requires trial and cannot be conclusively determined at the stage of framing of charge.”

In her ruling, the court also upheld the trial court’s order framing charges against Rani and the couple’s children, Harsh and Prateeksha, saying that they failed to report the incident to the authorities despite having knowledge. “The material available on record, including the categorical statements of the prosecutrix and the surrounding circumstances, sufficiently indicate that the said accused persons were aware of the commission of the offence and failed to report the same to the concerned authorities,” the court maintained.

Justice Sharma in her 27-page ruling, however, quashed the charges against Rani for abetting the commission of rape and penetrative sexual assault, saying that there was no evidence to suggest that the officer committed any act after the victim informed about the same to his wife in January 2021.

“There is no material to suggest that the petitioner Seema had instigated the co- accused Premodya to commit the alleged offence of rape or penetrative sexual assault; nor is there any evidence of her engaging in any conspiracy with him for the commission of the said offence. Furthermore, even the third limb i.e intentionally aiding by an act or illegal commission is not attracted in the present case,” the order read.