Delhi High Court Stays Trial Court Order Directing Registration Of FIR Against Business Tycoon’s Son In Alleged Rape Case

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday stayed the trial court order directing the Delhi Police to register an FIR against a business tycoon’s son for allegedly raping a woman on the false pretext of marrying her.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani issued notice on Singh’s plea and listed the matter for hearing on May 29.

On March 27, Additional Sessions Judge Arul Varma of Saket Courts had directed the police to register FIR within a week against Veer Singh. It was observed that acts of putting vermillion on head and garlanding each other are sufficient to induce the belief of lawful marriage.

It was the complainant’s case that she was induced by Singh to cohabit with him and to establish sexual relations after performing a “sham marriage ceremony.” It was alleged that Singh committed rape upon her and she entered into sexual relations with him on the belief that she was lawfully married to him.

It was also alleged that Singh and his family members organized their marriage ceremony in December 2018 in Taiwan, including post wedding ceremonies like grih pravesh and dhol ceremony. A child was also born from the relationship.

She also alleged that not only Singh deceived her, but he also obstructed her movements and observed her without her consent. It was also alleged that Singh placed CCTVs and baby monitors in the bedrooms and the lobby.

Thus, the complainant sought registration of FIR under sections 341, 342, 344, 354C, 354D, 420, 506 and 120B of IPC read with section 81 of Juvenile Justice, 2015.

The trial court, in the impugned order, observed that it was a case where prima facie there are allegations of commission of sexual intercourse without the consent of the complainant.

It had said that to ignore the alleged conduct of Singh would be akin to giving a license to “licentious men” to break the law and exploit autonomy of a woman with brazen impunity.

“Such an affront to dignity of a woman cannot be brushed under the carpet for it will compound her ignominy. Perhaps it was for instances like these that clause fourthly to Section 375 IPC and Section 493 IPC were enacted. To give teeth to these provisions, robust investigation is a sine qua non. It would be expedient in the interest of justice to investigate the cognizable offences alleged by the revisionist,” it said. 

Title: Veer Singh v. State