The Delhi lawyer accused of raping a 27-year-old advocate and then attempting to influence her through two judicial officers has approached the Delhi High Court seeking quashing of the rape case.
The 51-year-old lawyer has sought quashing of the case on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at with the complainant.
He has also filed an application seeking anticipatory bail in the matter as the trial court denied his plea earlier this month.
The case hit the headlines when the Delhi High Court took an administrative decision to suspend judicial officer Sanjeev Kumar Singh, and initiated a disciplinary probe against him and another district court judge.
This was after it was alleged that the two judicial officers had allegedly pressured the complainant to withdraw the case against the lawyer.
The complainant woman had filed an FIR in June 2025 at Neb Sarai Police Station, accusing the 51-year-old lawyer of rape, criminal intimidation and assault.
She alleged that the accused, a widower, forced himself on her several times over five years under the pretext of marriage and that she became pregnant earlier this year.
According to the prosecution, the accused took her to a hospital for an abortion and later assaulted her at a country club in South Delhi, where CCTV footage reportedly captured parts of the altercation.
The lawyer’s plea seeking the quashing of the case came up for hearing before Justice Amit Mahajan on December 3, when he issued notice to the Delhi Police and the complainant.
Today, the anticipatory bail plea was listed for hearing. As Justice Mahajan took up the case, he said that he may recuse and send the case to another court because he had cancelled the petitioner’s bail earlier.
Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa, appearing for the lawyer, stated that since the plea seeking quashing of the case is listed for December 22, the Court can take a decision on the same date.
The Court then adjourned the case to December 22.
In the plea seeking quashing of the case, the lawyer has argued that he and the complainant and the lawyer have chosen to resolve their differences amicably “upon reflection and through counsel”.
“They have voluntarily entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 29.11.2025, without any pressure, agreeing to bring closure to all disputes and to move forward independently in their respective personal and professional lives,” the plea stated.
It added that the dispute is personal in nature and the continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would only prolong hardship and mental distress for both individuals.
Along with Senior Advocate Pahwa, the petitioner was represented by advocates Nattasha Garg, Anubhav Dubey, Liza Arora, Jasmeet Chaddha and Soumya Dhawan.
Advocates Rajesh Kr Singh, Sagar Roy, Amit Bidhuri and Abhishek Bhati appeared for the complainant.
State was represented through Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Sunil Kumar Gautam.