Delhi High Court: In a petition filed by the petitioner (‘accused’) seeking to quash the FIR registered under Sections 3761 and 377 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., stated that the submission by the accused that a woman must assume additional responsibility and foresee marriage-related difficulties solely because she was elder to her partner was based on a patriarchal and legally flawed premise. Given the prima-facie material on record and the gravity of the allegations, the Court found no justification for quashing the FIR at this stage, and accordingly, dismissed the present petition.
Background
The facts of the present case were that the victim had approached the police station, alleging that the accused had established physical relations with her on the on the false pretext of marriage, on various occasions, since May 2018. It was alleged that the victim had met the accused on 17-10-2017 at her workplace, where they had been working as colleagues.
On 16-12-2017, the accused had approached the victim for a romantic relationship, which she had initially refused, but upon his repeated requests, she had agreed to befriend him on 18-12-2017. In January 2018, when the victim started receiving marriage proposals, she had informed the accused, who had assured her of their future together and had persuaded her to reject all other proposals.
Subsequently, on 16-02-2018, the accused proposed the victim for marriage, which she accepted. In March 2018, the accused took the victim thrice to Deer Park, after sunset, where he attempted to establish physical relations with her. Upon her refusal, the accused masturbated in front of her. On one such occasion, he allegedly forced himself upon her and committed rape.
It was alleged that the accused had repeatedly assured the victim of marriage, persuaded her to reject other proposals, and had induced her into a relationship. On several occasions, including at Deer Park, and his room, he had allegedly engaged in non-consensual sexual acts, including unnatural intercourse, despite her resistance. Additionally, the victim claimed to have provided him with financial assistance of approximately Rs. 4-5 lakhs, believing in his commitment to marriage, which he had later refused, ultimately severing contact with her.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that consent in the context of sexual offences was a crucial determinant of whether an act amounted to rape or sexual assault. Both Section 376 of IPC and Section 65 of the BNS defined rape and emphasized the importance of free, voluntary, and informed consent in sexual relations.
The Court stated that in the present case, the victim alleged that the accused had established physical relations with her on multiple occasions under the false pretext of marriage, assuring her of a future together and persuading her to reject other marriage proposals. The record indicated that the accused had allegedly repeatedly assured the victim of marriage, engaged in sexual relations with her, and later refused to fulfil his commitment, severing contact with her. Additionally, the victim had allegedly provided financial assistance of approximately Rs. 4-5 lakhs, further demonstrating her belief in the accused’s false assurances.
Thus, given the circumstances, the Court stated that the allegations against the accused necessitated a full trial, as they disclosed a prima facie case of sexual exploitation under false assurances, making the quashing of the FIR unwarranted at this stage.
The Court stated that the argument that the victim should have realized the difficulties in marriage due to being elder to the accused was legally untenable and devoid of merit. The accused, despite being fully aware of the age difference, actively pursued the relationship, gave assurances of marriage, and induced the victim to make financial and emotional commitments. The burden could not be unfairly shifted onto the victim to have foreseen the accused’s future refusal to marry when he himself assured her of a shared future.
The Court further stated that the submission by the accused that a woman must assume additional responsibility and foresee marriage-related difficulties solely because she was elder to her partner was based on a patriarchal and legally flawed premise. The Court stated that a woman’s decision to engage in a relationship based on the man’s specific promises could not be dismissed as mere obsession when the man later defaults on his commitment. Such an argument not only lacked legal standing but also reflected a misogynistic perspective that seeks to impose an unreasonable burden on the victim while absolving the accused of accountability for his own assurances and conduct.
The Court stated that in light of the accused’s specific assurances of marriage, the victim’s consent to the physical relationship was premised on a legitimate expectation of marriage. If it was established that the accused never intended to marry her from the outset, such consent would be vitiated under Section 902 IPC as one obtained under misconception of fact, thereby attracting liability under Section 3753 IPC for rape. Thus, the facts of the present case, established that the allegations warranted judicial scrutiny through trial.
Given the prima-facie material on record and the gravity of the allegations, the Court found no justification for quashing the FIR at this stage, and accordingly, dismissed the present petition.
[X v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1755, decided on 20-03-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Kushal Kumar, Akash Deep Gupta, Rajan Malhotra, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State; Surbhit Nandan and Sandeep Mishra, Advocates.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
1. Section 64 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’)
