Delhi High Court: In a case wherein an application under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) had been filed by the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail in FIR registered at Police Station Bindapur, Delhi for offences punishable under Section 376 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.*, after examining the facts and documents on record, opined that it was clear that the petitioner and the complainant had taken the judicial system and the investigating agencies for a ride and were trying to manipulate the judicial system to their advantage in different ways, one for seeking anticipatory bail though now, non-bailable warrants had already been issued against him since he was absconding and the complainant for getting married to him. Thus, the Court dismissed the bail application.
Background
The complainant stated that she had come in contact with the petitioner in 2015 and they used to interact during their employment and job requirements. It was alleged by the complainant that initially she had rejected the advances made by the petitioner but upon regular insistence, she agreed to become friends with him. It was also alleged that the petitioner had taken the complainant to a hotel where physical relations were established between them on the pretext of marriage and the petitioner had also taken her to a temple in Najafgarh where he had given the impression that they were married, and he had again promised her that they would get properly married later on. Thereafter, on this pretext, he had established physical relations with her on several occasions. The complainant had requested the petitioner several times to get married in the Court (civil marriage), however, he had kept sexually exploiting her on one or the other pretext. It was further alleged that later, the petitioner stopped receiving her phone calls and refused to marry her. FIR was registered on 30-06-2023 under Section 376 of the IPC.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that till 02-08-2023, and thereafter on 10-08-2023 when the bail application came up for hearing before this Court and was withdrawn after some arguments, there was nothing to suggest that the petitioner and the complainant were contemplating getting married or that the petitioner had admitted to having a consensual relationship with the complainant, however, a significant shift had occurred in this case when an application for grant of anticipatory bail again came up for hearing. The Court further noted that the petitioner had taken the stand before this Court that he be granted anticipatory bail as the complainant and the petitioner were ready to marry each other, thus, now the petitioner had presented an entirely contradictory stance before this Court, asserting that the complainant was willing to marry him and, therefore, anticipatory bail be granted to him.
The Court opined that the complainant as per her statement to the police and the Magistrate was always willing to get married to the applicant, however, it was the accused who had denied having ever promised marriage to the complainant or having established physical relations with her on pretext of marriage. This Court also took note of an alleged suicide note written by the complainant, wherein she had threatened to commit suicide since the petitioner was unwilling to get married to her.
The Court further opined that the Courts of law could not be used as a forum for the purpose of facilitating marriages and be used as marriage facilitators by first lodging an FIR alleging that the petitioner, after establishing physical relations, had refused to get married to the complainant and later appear before the Court for either grant of bail which they had been opposing for many months. Further, the Court after examining the facts and documents on record, opined that it was clear that the petitioner and the complainant had taken the judicial system and the investigating agencies for a ride and were trying to manipulate the judicial system to their advantage in different ways, one for seeking anticipatory bail though now, non-bailable warrants had already been issued against him since he was absconding and the complainant for getting married to him.
The Court observed that it was very strange that it had been stated by the petitioner that he had nothing to do with the offence in question and he had come to know from the contents of FIR only that he had committed sexual assault on false pretext of marriage, and also that he and the complainant shared friendly relationship with each other and that the petitioner had never maintained physical relations with the complainant at any point of time. In the same breath, however, he stated that the father of the complainant was now ready for marriage between the parties who was not ready earlier. Thus, the Court opined that these statements were contrary to each other and clearly pointed out towards using the Court for their own purposes.
The Court opined that in the present case the judicial system and the investigating agency had invested time and resources which need investment of finances and human resources by the State and the judicial system. The Court also noted that there had been a trend in the past to burden the judicial system with such complaints and such cases clog the dockets of the Courts. Thus, the Court opined that the judicial system could not be used either to settle scores with each other or pressurize any party to act in a particular manner to reach one’s goal.
Thus, the Court dismissed the bail application and held that this Court did not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail as the case had travelled from the point of lodging of the FIR till the present point of investigation and the truth had to prevail by investigating into allegations for which custodial interrogation of the petitioner might be required for the purpose of confronting the complainant also with the petitioner to reach the truth.
[X v. State, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5427, decided on 04-09-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: R.K. Chaudhary, Raj Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent: Satish Kumar, APP
*Judgment authored by: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
