Pranav B Prem

The Delhi High Court has refused to quash an FIR registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), holding that a familial relationship between the prosecutrix and the accused does not automatically negate the possibility of a promise of marriage. The Court emphasized that the nature of the relationship between the parties is a crucial factor in determining whether there was any promise of marriage and whether consent was vitiated by a misconception of fact.

Background of the Case

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was considering a plea filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of an FIR lodged against him under Section 376 IPC by the prosecutrix, who is a distant relative. According to the FIR, the petitioner and the prosecutrix shared a distant familial relationship, and the petitioner repeatedly assured her of marriage, leading her to consent to engage in physical relations with him. The prosecutrix alleged that in November 2022, on the pretext of seeking familial approval for marriage, the petitioner left her at her sister’s house but later changed his phone number and began avoiding her calls, messages, and emails. She subsequently lodged an FIR in February 2023. The petitioner argued that, as they were distant relatives, a marriage between them was legally impossible, and therefore, he never made a promise of marriage. He contended that the relationship was consensual and that the prosecutrix was aware of the impossibility of marriage from the outset.

On the other hand, the prosecutrix maintained that their relationship did not fall within the prohibited degrees of relationship under Hindu law. She contended that as there was no legal impediment to their marriage, the petitioner’s argument of impossibility was baseless.

Court’s Observations

The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019), where it was held: "Where the promise to marry is false and the intention of the maker at the time of making the promise itself was not to abide by it but to deceive the woman to convince her to engage in sexual relations, there is a 'misconception of fact' that vitiates the woman's 'consent'."

The Court noted that the nature of the relationship between the parties plays a significant role in assessing whether any promise of marriage was made. It observed: “The nature of the relationship between the parties is a crucial factor in determining whether any promise of marriage was made and whether the respondent's consent was vitiated by a misconception of fact. The petitioner's assertion that marriage between them was impossible may hold relevance, but it does not conclusively negate the possibility of an implied or explicit promise of marriage. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner, being a major and of sound mind, was fully aware of the familial relationship between him and the respondent, and yet he proceeded to engage in physical relation with her. This conscious decision raises questions regarding the petitioner's intent and understanding of the consequences of his actions.”

The Court also rejected the petitioner’s argument that the delay in filing the FIR cast doubts on the prosecutrix’s allegations. It noted that delay in lodging an FIR in cases of sexual offenses cannot automatically render the allegations false. The prosecutrix provided a convincing explanation, stating that she believed in the sincerity of their 12-year relationship and hoped the petitioner would return. However, when she discovered that the petitioner was planning to marry another woman, she filed the FIR. The Court remarked: “This explanation is plausible and warrants careful consideration during trial. The delay, under these circumstances, cannot serve as a ground to dismiss the allegations at this stage. Each case must be evaluated on its own merits to ensure that justice is not undermined by procedural technicalities.”

Verdict

In view of the above findings, the Court held that the allegations disclose a prima facie case under Section 376 IPC, warranting a trial. It refused to quash the FIR and dismissed the petitioner’s plea, stating that the matter requires judicial examination to ascertain the veracity of the allegations.

Cause Title: Divyansh Bajpai vs. State (Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi) And Anr

Case No: CRL.M.C. 4228/2023 & CRL.M.A. 15854/2023 

Date: January-24-2025

Bench: Justice Chandra Dhari Singh

[Read/Download order]