"Process Of Law Being Used As A Tool For Settling Personal Scores": Delhi High Court Quashes Rape FIR

The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR registered by a woman alleging rape by a man at multiple occasions after noting that the prosecutrix was in a long term relationship of four years with him and that the FIR was only filed after the said relationship ended on hostile terms.

Justice Subramonium Prasad was dealing with a plea seeking quashing of FIR registered for offences under Section 376(2) (n), 354, 354A of Indian Penal Code.

In the complaint, the woman stated 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, she was shocked. It was stated that the Petitioner had promised to marry her while he was in a relationship with someone else and that he went to her house, abused and assaulted her.

The complainant gave another complaint stating that the Petitioner and the complainant became friends four years ago and that he would frequently visit the complainant's house. It was 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.

Another complaint was lodged by the complainant stating 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, he started coercing the complainant to meet him. Similar allegations were made in the said complaint as well. The complainant refused to be medically examined in March 2021.

The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Petitioner and Complainant were in a long-term relationship of four years which turned sour and that the Petitioner was falsely implicated in the matter.

It was submitted that there was a delay of four years in filing of the FIR and that the complainant's version of the story was completely fabricated and was based on hoax statements given to the Police at different points of time and that there were discrepancies between the FIR lodged and the Section 164 CrPC statement of the complainant.

On the other hand, the prosecution argued that the offence of rape is a grave offence and notwithstanding the all encompassing power of the Court under Section 482 CrPC, it should be circumspect in exercising its power in cases where heinous allegations are made.

Noting that each subsequent complaint made by the complainant contained improvements from the last one, the Court took note of the fact that while in the FIR, the complainant stated that she was given juice by the Petitioner which made her semi-conscious whereas in her Section 164 CrPC statement she stated she was given wine by the petitioner.

"She did not file a complaint and did not get herself medically examined which would have substantiated that she had been given some intoxicating substance. In the FIR, it was stated that on 15.8.2017 when the Petitioner visited her house, her mother was in Punjab attending the funeral/last rites of her brother, whereas in her 164 statement she stated that her mother is bed ridden and unable to walk," the Court noted further.

The Court was of the view that a perusal of the material on record indicated that the complainant and the Petitioner were in a consensual relationship with each other for four years before the impugned FIR was filed against the Petitioner, alleging establishing sexual relations with the complainant under a false promise to marry.

Further noting that the complainant had not only alleged the complaints against the petitioner but also against the uncles and his brothers-in-law, the Court said:

"Section 90 IPC stipulates that consent given under fear or misconception cannot be said to be consent. In this context, it becomes relevant to factor in the aspect that the prosecutrix was in a long-term relationship spanning a period of four years and the FIR was only filed after the said relationship ended on hostile terms. Therefore, it cannot be said that the consent so accorded for establishment of physical realationship was predicated upon misconception of fear."

The Court was of the view that the material on record established that there were substantial embellishments in the Section 164 statement that were not mentioned in the FIR.

"Apart from that, there are notable discrepancies in each of the successive complaints of the petitioner, that make it seem that a private dispute is being aggravated for ulterior purposes and the process of the law is being used as a tool for settling personal scores," the Court said.

It added "Taking into account the material contradictions and keeping in mind substantial improvements made by the complainant at every stage, this Court of the opinion that it is fit for this Court to exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the present FIR. Resultantly, FIR No. 143/2021 filed at PS Paschim Vihar for offences under Section 376(2)n, 354, 354-A IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom is hereby quashed."

Accordingly, the plea was disposed of.

Case Title: CAPT SIMRANJIT SINGH SAMBHI v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 186

Click Here To Read Order