IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Capt Simranjit Singh Sambhi - Appellant
Versus
State (NCT Of Delhi) & Anr. - Respondents
Crl. M.C. 2960 of 2021 and Crl. M.A. 18641 of 2021 (Stay)
Decided On : 07-03-2022
Section 482 Cr.P.C - Quashing of FIR - Section 376(2)(n), 354, 354A IPC - Gian Singh V. State of Punjab (2012)10 SCC 303; State of Madhya Pradesh V. Lakshmi Naryanan (2019) 5 SCC 408; Parbatbhai Aahir V. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641
Fact of the Case:
The complainant alleged that the petitioner established physical relations with her on the false promise of marriage. The petitioner denied the allegations and claimed that the complainant was falsely implicating him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found substantial embellishments and contradictions in the complainant's statements, indicating ulterior motives. It quashed the FIR and proceedings, citing the complainant's long-term consensual relationship with the petitioner and material contradictions in her statements.
Issues: Consent under fear or misconception, substantial embellishments and contradictions in the complainant's statements, misuse of the legal process for personal scores.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal principles from Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, and Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh to establish the vitiation of consent under fear or misconception and the need for immediate relevance of false promise to marry.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR and all proceedings, considering the complainant's long-term consensual relationship with the petitioner and substantial embellishments and contradictions in her statements.
ORDER
1. The present writ petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of FIR No. 143/2021 at PS Tilak Nagar on 02.03.2021 for offences under Section 376(2) (n), 354, 354AIPC.
2. The Relevant facts of the case are chronologically given as hereunder-
i. On 08.10.2020, the complainant addressed a complaint to the S.H.O. Tilak Nagar. It was stated therein that she was in a relationship with the Petitioner for three years and when she was told by the Petitioner that he was a divorcee the complainant was shocked. It was stated that the Petitioner had promised to marry her while he was in a relationship with someone else. It was stated that the Petitioner went to her house and abused and assaulted her.
ii. On 9.10.2020, the complainant withdrew the complaint given on 8.10.2020 stating that there was a misunderstanding between the Petitioner and her which was later resolved.
iii. On 13.2.2021, another complaint was given by the complainant to the SHO Tilak Nagar stating that she had lodged a complaint that the petitioner promised to marry the complainant four months ago and after reconciling with her had asked for nine-month of time to marry the complainant. It is stated that the Petitioner went to her house, abused her and then beat her severely.
iv. The complainant gave yet another complaint to the S.H.O. Tilak Nagar which was recorded vide LC-381/SHO/TN on 13.02.2021. It was stated that the Petitioner and the complainant became friends four years ago and that he would frequently visit the complainant's house. It is stated that about a year ago the petitioner visited her house, at a time when her mother had gone to Punjab and her sister was in the other room, the Petitioner forced her to have intercourse with him by promising to marry her. It is stated that the Petitioner and complainant would roam around with each other and he would blackmail the complainant by showing her explicit videos of her with an intention to threaten her as his uncle and mother did not want the Petitioner and complainant to get married. It is stated when the Petitioner stopped talking to her, she visited the house of the Petitioner where the mother, uncle and brother-in-law of the Petitioner turned the complainant out of the house from the gate in front of neighbours and did not allow her to meet the Petitioner. It is stated that the Petitioner's uncle told her that he would not allow the Petitioner to marry her and sent her vulgar videos. It is stated that the Petitioner resiled from marrying the complainant after establishing physical relations with her on the false promise of marriage.
v. Another complaint dated 19.02.2021 was lodged by the complainant. It was stated by her that she met the Petitioner via Facebook, after 3-4 months of chatting, the Petitioner introduced himself as a pilot in Air India and in April 2017 Petitioner started coercing the complainant to meet him. After repeated requests, on 17.4.2017 the complainant agreed to meet the Petitioner at Royalush Banquet Hall at Wazirpur which was owned by her brother-in-law and spent 3-4 hours with him, after which the Petitioner dropped the complainant at her house. It is stated that he started visiting her house more frequently, became familiar with her mother and brother and claimed to be unmarried. It is stated on 10.5.2017, she was called to the birthday party of the mother of the Petitioner, at his residence from where the Petitioner picked her up. It is stated that on 15.8.2017, the Petitioner came over to the house of the complainant when her mother had gone to Punjab, her brother was not at home and her sister Manpreet was in her bedroom and he gave her a bottle of juice and said to the complainant that they will celebrate Independence Day. It is stated that after consuming the liquid she became unconscious and on waking up she found herself naked covered in a bed sheet and shouted and abused the petitioner for raping her after lacing her drink with some intoxicant. The Petitione
Consent under fear or misconception and the immediate relevance of false promise to marry in establishing the vitiation of consent.
(1) Rape – In every case of rape, act of sexual intercourse must be forcible and without consent of woman/lady – Consent obtained by fraud amounts to no consent.(2) Misconception of fact – Breach of ....
The promise to marry must be false from inception to constitute an offence under section 376 IPC; a consensual relationship over time does not amount to rape.
It is necessary to examine FIR, statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. before Judicial Magistrate First Class to find out correct factual matrix of issue - Sum and substance of decis....
The distinction between a false promise to marry and a mere breach of promise, and the need for active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act to establish whether the consent was vitiated....
(1) Exercise of inherent jurisdiction – High Court does not have to go in detail by way of minute examination about correctness or otherwise of facts alleged – Court has to examine the same by taking....
FIR for rape on false marriage promise quashed post mutual divorce and compromise; consensual relationship where promise not false ab initio; proceedings abuse of process.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.