Some People Use Section 376 IPC As Weapon To Harass Male Counterpart: Delhi HC Quashes Rape Case
The Delhi High Court quashed a rape case noticing that the parties had consensually agreed to enter into physical relationship.
The Court observed that the FIR had been lodged under section 376 of the IPC which is one of the most heinous crimes against women, however, some people use it as a weapon to unnecessarily harass the male counterpart.
The Petition before the Delhi High Court was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Samhita, 2023) seeking quashing of the FIR registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh remarked, “The instant case is a classic example of how an innocent person had faced undue hardships due to misuse of the penal provision and therefore, this Court is of the firm view that nothing would come out of the case if the matter is subjected to trial.”
Advocate R. K. Ruhil represented the Petitioner while APP Satish Kumar represented the Respondents.
The petitioner’s Counsel submitted that the complainant/prosecutrix and the petitioner were in a relationship and had established physical relations with due consent. The contents of the FIR and the subsequent statement given under Section 164 of the CrPC revealed that there were no allegations regarding the petitioner being indulged in physical relations with the prosecutrix on false pretext of marriage. It was further submitted that the marriage between the parties did not take place due to non-interest shown by the prosecutrix. The said claim was evident from the fact that the petitioner was ready to get married to her against the wishes of his family. As per the Petitioner, the WhatsApp chats and the transcript of the audio recordings clearly showed bonafide of the petitioner and did not raise any question regarding whether the petitioner was indulged in act warranting framing of charges under Section 376 of the IPC or not.
Upon perusal of the FIR and statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, it was made out that even though the prosecutrix had leveled allegations against the petitioner and the said allegations stemmed from his alleged misconduct in the year 2015, the parties had performed roka ceremony in the year 2019. With respect to the allegation regarding the sexual assault on March 19, 2020, the petitioner had pleaded alibi and the same was proven from the record of his duties at PHS Dariyawala, Jind, Haryana and the subsequent status report filed by the respondent State.
It was also established from the statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC of the prosecutrix that the parties had taken steps to get married, however, the families did not agree due to the caste facto. The Bench further noticed that despite the said reservations from the petitioner’s family, the petitioner was ready to get married to the prosecutrix and she herself did not show any interest later on and entered into a relationship with another person.
“The WhatsApp chats between the parties also shows that the prosecutrix had sent several messages to the petitioner and conveyed information regarding her decision to get married to another person, therefore, the instant FIR is nothing but an afterthought”, it said while further adding, “The relevant material on record, i.e. the recordings, WhatsApp chats, statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC etc. clearly establishes that the ingredients of Section 376 of the IPC are not met as the parties had consensually agreed to enter into physical relationship and the same was also not based on false promise of marriage.”
The Bench further held, “It is true that the provision under which the FIR has been lodged is one of the most heinous crimes against women, however, it is also an established fact that some people use it as a weapon to unnecessarily harass the male counterpart.” Thus, exercising its discretionary power, the Court allowed the Petition and quashed the FIR registered under Section 376 of the IPC and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
Cause Title: Suraj Parkash v. State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr [Neutral Citation: 2024: DHC: 9384]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates R. K. Ruhil, Anil Kumar, Rahul Kasana
Respondents: APP Satish Kumar, Advocates Kaadambari Singh, Muskaan Chawla Tanya Singh Kaurav, Sheetal (PS Hauz Khas)