New Delhi: A Delhi court has discharged a man accused of raping a woman on the pretext of marriage, holding that the case stemmed from a consensual relationship that later turned acrimonious. In an order dated Feb 12, judge Harjeet Singh Jaspal said “genuine cases that deserve prosecution of the accused must be clearly demarcated from the litigation that arises from the cases of consensual relationships between consenting adults going acrimonious on account of dispute and disagreement or a future change of mind.” The case was registered in 2017 under Sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) IPC. The prosecution alleged the man induced the complainant into a sexual relationship from Dec 25, 2012 by falsely promising marriage. The court, however, noted that the couple had legally married in Sept 2015—after the complainant threatened to file a case—and had been living together in a “valid subsisting marriage”.The complainant later alleged the man moved back to Gurgaon and told her she couldn’t take action against him. She also accused him and his friend of criminal intimidation over alleged scandalous WhatsApp messages. However, the court said her Section 164 CrPC statement confirmed a court marriage and didn’t allege forceful sexual intercourse. “Taking 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 said. The court also noted allegations of criminal intimidation were absent from her statement. Although the investigating officer sought her phone to verify the alleged WhatsApp messages, she refused to submit it, leaving the claims uncorroborated, as per the defence 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 said the claim of rape on the pretext of marriage “took away the scope of criminality.” Emphasising 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 IPC.
