Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has set aside the order of a lower court discharging an accused from offences under the Indian Penal Code and directed the trial court to frame charges for rape and criminal intimidation. The court held that a prima facie case was established for offences under Sections 376 and 506 IPC and instructed that charges be framed accordingly. It concluded that the accused was liable to face trial for allegedly inducing the prosecutrix into a sexual relationship under a false promise of marriage that he never intended to fulfil, as well as for threats issued to her.

The proceedings arose from a case involving allegations of rape, administration of an intoxicating substance, and criminal intimidation. The prosecution stated that the complainant came into contact with the accused via Facebook and first met him on 20 August 2013 in Delhi. After several meetings, the accused allegedly proposed marriage. On 13 October 2013, the complainant was invited to his house purportedly to meet his parents, who were not at home. During the visit, she was allegedly offered a cold drink after which she became unconscious, and upon regaining consciousness, she realised she had been subjected to sexual intercourse. The prosecution alleged that thereafter, the accused blackmailed her with obscene videos and threatened to post them on social media if she spoke about the incident, while also reassuring her of marriage.

Also Read: Supreme Court Quashes High Court Bail | Slams “Callous” Release Of Kannada Actors Darshan, Pavitra Gowda In Chilling Renukaswamy Murder Case

The complainant stated she allowed two years for the accused to settle down, during which he continued physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage. In November 2015, he allegedly refused marriage citing caste differences. On subsequent dates in December 2015 and March 2016, he is alleged to have alternately reassured her and threatened her. On 19 March 2016, he allegedly issued threats of dire consequences if she complained. An FIR was registered on 11 April 2016 under Sections 376, 328, and 506 IPC at Police Station Bindapur.

Investigation included medical examination, but no samples were collected as the last alleged contact was beyond 72 hours. A statement under Section 164 CrPC was recorded, and a chargesheet filed. On 5 December 2016, the Sessions Court discharged the accused citing delay in lodging the FIR, absence of medical evidence, non-recovery of alleged videos, unspecified details of incidents, and inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's statements.

The State challenged the discharge, arguing that the trial court conducted a "mini-trial" at the stage of framing charges despite there being sufficient material. The defence argued the relationship was consensual, the FIR was lodged after the relationship soured, and maintained the discharge was justified.

The court recorded that there was no material to support the allegation of being administered an intoxicating or stupefying substance, thereby agreeing that Section 328 IPC was not made out. However, regarding Section 376 IPC, the court stated: "It is apparent that the accused was aware of the caste of the prosecutrix from the very inception of their relationship. Therefore, when the accused later cited the caste difference as the sole ground for refusal, it prima facie supports the inference that he was conscious of this impediment from the very beginning. His professed intention to marry was, therefore, illusory from the start."

The court noted the prosecutrix's consistent claim from her FIR and Section 164 CrPC statement that the accused had sexual relations with her from the first incident onward on repeated assurances of marriage, and under threat of misuse of obscene videos. It stated: "The accused’s conduct of continuing physical relations over an extended period while knowing fully well that marriage was not possible in his family on account of caste considerations, indicates that the promise to marry was made dishonestly, solely to obtain sexual favours." The court held such a promise without intention to perform it from inception fell within Section 376 IPC.

On the approach to be taken at the stage of framing charges, the court cited Supreme Court precedent in Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohd. Maqbool Magrey, noting: "All that is required at this stage is that the Court must be satisfied that the evidence collected by the prosecution is sufficient to presume that the accused has committed an offence. Even a strong suspicion would suffice."

Also Read: Karnataka HC : Contract Labour For Factory Maintenance Qualifies As Employees Under ESI Act | Employer Cannot Evade Liability By Suppressing Records

Regarding Section 506 IPC, the court observed: "The prosecutrix has specifically alleged that on 19.03.2016, the accused had threatened to kill her if she continued to visit or bother him or insisted on marriage... These allegations, taken at their face value, prima facie disclose the commission of an offence under Section 506 of IPC."

The High Court set aside the Sessions Court's discharge order to the extent it related to Sections 376 and 506 IPC. It directed that: "The respondent/accused is found liable to be charged for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC. The learned Trial Court shall frame the charges accordingly and proceed with the trial in accordance with law." It clarified that observations in the judgment were solely for deciding the petition and would not affect the merits during trial.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Ms. Richa Dhawan, Advocate along with IO, P.S. Bindapur

For the Respondents: Mr. Sobhik Tanwar, Advocate

Case Title: State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) v. XXX

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:6754

Case Number: CRL.REV.P. 556/2017

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma