Courts Cannot Be Used As Marriage Facilitators For Pressurizing Rape Accused To Get Married To Victim: Delhi High Court

A Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that Courts cannot be used as a forum for pressuring accused to marry victims or for obtaining bail through such claims, “The Courts cannot be used as a matrimonial facilitators for the purpose of pressurizing the accused to get married to the victim or be denied bail, or by the accused for obtaining bail by asking the complainant to appear before the Court and state that he was ready to get married to her.”

The victim alleged that she and the applicant had a history of interaction since 2015 due to their employment, and after several years, they began a relationship. The applicant was accused of establishing physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage. The victim claimed she repeatedly asked the applicant to marry her but was exploited instead.

Advocate R.K. Chaudhary appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Satish Kumar appeared for the Respondent.

The applicant's counsel argued that both parties were willing to marry, and the applicant sought anticipatory bail based on this willingness. However, the State opposed the bail, citing the serious nature of the allegations and the applicant's evasion of investigation.

The Court reviewed the victim's statements to the police and under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The Court noted that the applicant had previously applied for anticipatory bail, which was denied by the Additional Sessions Judge and subsequently withdrawn. Another bail application was filed and was dismissed by the same judge.

The Court said that the applicant's stance has shifted now claiming both parties were ready to marry. This change in position raises doubts about the credibility of their claims.

“However, a significant shift has occurred in this case when an application for grant of anticipatory bail again came up for hearing before the learned Trial Court on 22.08.2023. The accused/applicant has taken the same stand before this Court that he be granted anticipatory bail as complainant and accused are ready to marry each other”, the Court held.

The Court noted the misuse of the judicial system by both parties, using different stances to their advantage.

In this context, the Bench observed, “The Courts of law cannot be used as a forum for the purpose of facilitating marriages and be used as marriage facilitators by first lodging an FIR alleging that the accused, after establishing physical relations, had refused to get married to the victim and later appear before the Court for either grant of bail which they have been opposing for many months.”

It condemned using the courts for marriage facilitation or to manipulate the legal process.

“From the examination of the facts and documents on record, it is clear that the accused as well as the complainant have taken the judicial system and the investigating agencies for a ride and are trying to manipulate the judicial system to their advantage in different ways, one for seeking anticipatory bail though now, non-bailable warrants have already been issued against him since he was absconding and the complainant for getting married to him”, the Court held.

The Court also highlighted the burden such cases place on the judicial system, with cases often involving complaints that parties later claim to have compromised and held, "This is nothing short of taking the judicial system and the investigating agency for a ride by both the parties through their conduct and different stands taken before the Courts and the investigating agency. The judicial system and the investigating agency have invested time and resources which need investment of finances and human resources by the State and the judicial system.”

The Court dismissed the bail application, stating that custodial interrogation may be necessary to determine the truth.

Cause Title: Ravi Bhushan Upadhyay v. The State, 2023:DHC:6344

Click here to read/download Judgment