Delhi High Court: A petition was filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (‘CrPC’) (now under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) seeking quashing of FIR registered for the offence punishable under Section 376 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. Chandra Dhari Singh, J., refused to quash the FIR as no compelling material or evidence was placed on record to establish that the continuation of criminal proceedings in the present case amounts to an abuse of the process of law.
The petitioner and the prosecutrix (respondent no. 2) have known each other since 2009 and share a distant familial relationship. Over the years, they remained in regular contact and developed a close bond. In 2019, the petitioner moved from Pune to Gurugram for professional reasons, working as a Data Engineer with Worldwide Technology. During this time, they frequently met at each other’s residences in Gurugram and Pitampura, Delhi. The prosecutrix alleged that the petitioner repeatedly promised to marry her, based on which she consented to engage in physical relations at various locations, including their residences and hotels. On 04-11-2022, she left her residence intending to marry the petitioner at his invitation, but he instead left her at her sister’s house in Gandhi Nagar, Delhi, citing the need for familial approval. Following this, he allegedly changed his phone number and began avoiding her calls, messages, and emails.
Subsequently, on 12-02-2023, respondent 2 lodged FIR under Section 376 IPC, alleging that the petitioner committed rape on the false pretext of marriage, thereby obtaining her consent for physical relations through deception. The petitioner was arrested on 14-02-2023 but was granted regular bail on 20-02-2023 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini, on the grounds that he had no prior criminal record, and his custodial interrogation was not required. Upon completing the investigation, the police filed a chargesheet under Section 376 IPC against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the FIR and ensuing proceedings, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking quashing of the same, asserting that no offence under Section 376 IPC is made out against him.
On the aspect whether the allegations in the FIR disclose a prima facie case under Section 376 of the IPC against the petitioner, the Court noted in the present case, the allegations made by respondent 2 disclose that the petitioner induced her to enter a physical relationship on the false promise of marriage. Further, her consent was vitiated under Section 90 of IPC as the petitioner never intended to fulfill the promise, and the said consent was given by her under a “misconception of fact” regarding their marriage. Thus, based on the evidence collected, including the complainant’s detailed statements, hotel booking records, and witness testimonies, the investigating officer concluded that a prima facie case under Section 376 of the IPC was made out against the petitioner.
The Court further noted that it is well-established that there exists a difference between a breach of promise due to unforeseen circumstances and a false promise made with fraudulent intent. The intention of the petitioner at the time of making the alleged promise remains a matter of dispute and cannot be conclusively determined at this stage. It is a factual question that requires evidence to be tested during trial. While the allegations raise a prima facie case warranting further judicial scrutiny, the Court, at this juncture, cannot definitively conclude that the petitioner acted with mala fide intent.
The Court remarked that “it is the petitioner’s case that the respondent 2 herself admitted that the petitioner is a distant relative, specifically the son of the brother-in-law of the respondent’s father. The petitioner argues that as a matter of common understanding, a marriage between such relatives is legally impossible. In view of this familial relation, the petitioner denies ever making any promise of marriage to the respondent. It is the case of the respondent 2 that the petitioner does not fall within the prohibited degrees of relationship under the Hindu law or Sapinda relations.”
The Court concluded that the petitioner, being a major and of sound mind, was fully aware of the familial relationship between him and the respondent, and yet he proceeded to engage in physical relations with her. This conscious decision raises questions regarding the petitioner’s intent and understanding of the consequences of his actions. It is also a well-established principle of law that a delay in lodging an FIR, particularly in cases involving allegations of sexual offenses, cannot automatically render the allegations false. The delay, under these circumstances, cannot serve as grounds to dismiss the allegations at this stage. Each case must be evaluated on its own merits to ensure that justice is not undermined by procedural technicalities.
Thus, the Court held that the allegations made by the respondent disclose a prima facie case against the petitioner under Section 376 of the IPC, warranting further judicial inquiry through trial and is not a fit case to invoke the said powers to quash the instant FIR and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.
[Divyansh Bajpai v State, CRL.M.C. 4228/2023, decided on 24-01-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Jatan Singh, Advocate for petitioner;
Mr. Satish Kumar, APP for State,
Mr. Anand Verdhan Maitriya, Advocate for Respondent 2.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
I want to be updated regularly on such topics.