Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan has set aside orders that had dropped rape allegations against the husband’s relatives on jurisdictional grounds, holding that alleged sexual assault on a wife by such family members can constitute physical cruelty forming part of the same matrimonial abuse and need not be split into a separate trial. The case arises from a wife-complainant’s allegations of dowry-related harassment and assaults in the matrimonial home, including claims that she was sexually assaulted by her father-in-law and brother-in-law with the husband and other relatives allegedly facilitating and threatening her. The Court said offences under Sections 498A and 376 may proceed together where they are “a series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction”, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration on merits.

The case arose from a criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner challenging an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, East, Karkardooma Courts, which had discharged two accused persons of the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner alleged that after her marriage, she was subjected to continuous cruelty, dowry demands, and sexual assault at her matrimonial home located in Haryana. Following deterioration of her health, she was sent to her parental home in Delhi, where the FIR was registered.

Also Read: High Courts Must Consider Gravity Of Offence And Accused’s Role Before Suspending Sentence; Supreme Court

After investigation, a chargesheet was filed invoking offences under Sections 498A, 406, 376, and 34 of the IPC along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Sessions Court discharged the father-in-law and brother-in-law from the rape charge, holding that the alleged acts occurred outside its territorial jurisdiction. The Magistrate thereafter framed charges for remaining offences and discharged one accused entirely.

The petitioner contended that the allegations of rape were inseparably connected with the continuing acts of matrimonial cruelty and dowry harassment and therefore formed part of the same transaction. The respondents opposed the petition, asserting that the discharge order was legally sound and supported by precedent.

The Court examined the scope of revisional jurisdiction and noted that “the power ought to be exercised sparingly, in the interest of justice” and that it was not open to reappreciate evidence unless perversity was shown.

On territorial jurisdiction, the Court recorded that “ordinarily, the offence is tried by the Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed” but noted that Sections 178 and 179 of the CrPC create exceptions where offences are continuing in nature or where consequences ensue in another jurisdiction.

Referring to matrimonial cruelty, the Court observed that “sexual assault is also a form of cruelty, and if the same is alleged against the family members, it can also in some circumstances be part and parcel of physical cruelty as defined in Section 498A of the IPC.” The Court further recorded that “the mental trauma of such an offence is bound to persist even after the victim leaves her matrimonial home.”

While examining whether the offences formed the same transaction, the Court relied on settled principles and stated that “there is no universal formula” and that factors such as proximity of time, continuity of action, unity of place, and community of purpose must be examined. Applying these principles, the Court held that “the alleged offence of rape has been committed as a part and parcel of the alleged cruelty committed upon the petitioner.”

The Court rejected reliance placed on a Supreme Court decision cited by the Sessions Court and noted that “the reliance of the learned ASJ on the case of Ms. Pxxx v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. in the present case is misplaced.” It concluded that “the alleged offences of rape and cruelty in the present case are so connected that they form part of the same transaction.”

Also Read: Wedding Attendance Not A Ground For Indian-Origin Foreigner To Carry Undeclared Half-Kilo Gold Jewellery, Delhi High Court Recalls Interim Relief And Allows Customs Proceedings

The Court directed that “the impugned order and the subsequent order of the learned Magistrate dated 02.05.2023 are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned ASJ for a fresh consideration of the facts of the case on merits.”

The Court also clarified that “this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations or whether charges should be framed against the concerned accused for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC.”

With respect to allegations of bigamy, the Court stated that “the petitioner is at liberty to file an appropriate application before the Trial Court regarding the alleged lack of investigation pertaining to the allegations of bigamy against Respondent No.2.”

“The parties are directed to appear before the concerned Sessions Court on 19.01.2026. A copy of this order be communicated before the concerned Principal District and Sessions Judge for necessary compliance.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Akhilesh Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Raj Kumar, APP for the State; SI Akash Kumar, Police Station Bhajanpura; Mr. Naveen Single, Advocate; Mr. Prashant Mahadev, Advocate; Mr. Yogesh Grover, Advocate

Case Title: H v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:11630
Case Number: CRL.REV. P. 907/2023
Bench: Justice Amit Mahajan