Delhi Court Discharges Man in Rape Case, Cites Consensual Relationship Turned Acrimonious
A Delhi court has discharged a man accused of raping a woman on the pretext of marriage, holding that the case originated from a consensual relationship that later became acrimonious. In an order dated February 12, Judge Harjeet Singh Jaspal emphasized the need to distinguish genuine prosecutions from litigation arising from consensual adult relationships that turn sour due to disputes or changes of heart.
Case Background and Legal Proceedings
The case was registered in 2017 under Sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the man induced the complainant into a sexual relationship starting December 25, 2012, by falsely promising marriage. However, the court noted that the couple had legally married in September 2015, after the complainant threatened to file a case, and had been living together in a valid subsisting marriage.
The complainant later alleged that the man moved back to Gurgaon and told her she could not take legal action against him. She also accused him and his friend of criminal intimidation over alleged scandalous WhatsApp messages. However, the court found that her statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code confirmed the court marriage and did not allege forceful sexual intercourse.
Court's Analysis and Decision
Judge Jaspal stated, "Taking a holistic view of this statement, it appears that the prosecutrix is only complaining about the fact that the accused left her after marriage." The court also observed that allegations of criminal intimidation were absent from her statement. Although the investigating officer sought her phone to verify the WhatsApp messages, she refused to submit it, leaving the claims uncorroborated, as per defense counsel Parvesh Dabas.
The judge concluded that the complaint seemed to have been filed as a "pressure tactic" rather than a true allegation of rape. With the marriage certificate confirming the couple had been married for two years before the FIR, the court ruled that the claim of rape on the pretext of marriage "took away the scope of criminality."
Emphasizing that courts must find "grave suspicion" before framing charges, the judge said they "must not act as a mere post office guided only by the endorsement on the chargesheet." Finding insufficient material to proceed, the court discharged the accused of all charges under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC.
Key Points from the Ruling
- The case was based on a consensual relationship that turned acrimonious, not a criminal act of rape.
- The couple's legal marriage in 2015 undermined the prosecution's claim of rape on the pretext of marriage.
- Allegations of criminal intimidation were not supported by evidence, including the complainant's refusal to provide her phone for verification.
- The court highlighted the importance of distinguishing between genuine cases and those arising from personal disputes in consensual relationships.
