The Delhi High Court has decided not to dismiss the case against a married man accused of rape and unnatural sex, stemming from allegations that he engaged in a sexual relationship under false promises of marriage. Justice Saurabh Banerjee presided over the matter, noting the peculiar circumstance where the accused failed to disclose his subsequent marriage to another woman during the relationship with the complainant.
The court expressed reservations about making any determinations at this juncture, stating, “The same, ipso facto, creates a doubt in the mind of this Court to pass any order, at this stage.” The accused had contested the trial court’s decision to charge him under Sections 376(2)(n) [repeated rape] and 377 [unnatural offences] of the Indian Penal Code.
The interaction between the accused and the complainant began on the matrimonial site ‘Jeevansathi’ around October 2020. The prosecution argued that the accused traveled from Haridwar to Delhi with intentions of discussing marriage, leading to an alleged incident on January 11, 2021, when he invited the complainant to a hotel in Paharganj. Their physical relations reportedly initiated under the promise of marriage and continued across various locations.
It was only on March 5, 2023, that the complainant discovered the accused had married another woman, prompting her to file a police complaint. The defense argued that the prolonged relationship was consensual, emphasizing that hotel records show the complainant willingly provided her Aadhaar card during check-ins. Furthermore, they claimed the complainant continued the relationship even after learning of the accused’s marriage, under the belief that he would divorce his wife.
Despite these arguments, the State maintained that the charges were justifiably brought against the accused. They highlighted that the complainant was persuaded by renewed assurances that the accused would end his current marriage.
More Read
The court concluded that the situation warrants a comprehensive trial, thereby affirming the trial court’s decision to proceed with the charges. Justice Banerjee stated, “Keeping in view of the aforesaid analysis and reasoning, the present petition is dismissed and the charges framed against the petitioner under Sections 376(2)(n)/377 of the IPC vide the impugned order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the learned ASJ, (FTSC) (RC), Central District Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in SC No.313/2023 are hereby sustained.”
The legal representation for the petitioner included advocates Prince Arora, Wazid Ali, and Mitabh Gosain. The State’s case was advocated by Additional Public Prosecutor Raghuinder Verma, along with advocates Aditya Vikram Singh and Upasna Bakshi. Advocate Isha Khanna represented the complainant.
