'Consensual relationship turned sour': Delhi court junks rape charges against man, cites insufficient evidence

New Delhi, Mar 3 (PTI) A court here has discharged a man accused of raping a woman under the pretext of marriage, citing insufficient material on record to frame charges under the alleged offences.

Additional Sessions Judge Harjeet Singh Jaspal was hearing a case registered in 2017 under sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code (IPC).

According to the prosecution, the complainant had been in contact with the accused since December 25, 2012. The accused allegedly induced her to have sexual intercourse with him by making false promise of marriage.

In September 2015, the accused married the complainant upon being told that she will be filing a case against him. Thereafter, the accused and the complainant started living together, and have been in a valid subsisting marriage since then.

The accused moved back to Gurgaon soon after and allegedly told the complainant she cannot do anything against him.

The complainant also alleged of criminal intimidation by the accused, and his friend, who apparently sent scandalous WhatsApp messages to her.

In an order dated February 12, the judge said, "This court is unable to discern any material that would warrant the invocation of Section 376(2)(n) (committing rape repeatedly on the same woman) of the IPC. The facts of the present case unmistakably indicate towards a classic case of a consensual relationship turning acrimonious." It is evident that the prosecutrix has filled the present case as a pressure tactics and not as a complaint under Section 376 IPC, the court held.

Considering the valid marriage certificate on record, the court noted there is no case of rape on account of promise to marry since the complainant and the accused were already in a valid subsisting marriage for two years prior to the registration of the FIR.

The judge noted the two being already married took away the scope of criminality.

The additional public prosecutor had argued that despite the two being married, the charge under 376 IPC was still made out as the complainant was subjected to forceful sexual intercourse.

However, the court noted that the complainant did not level any allegations of forceful sexual intercourse in her pre-trial statement before the metropolitan magistrate under Section 164 CrPC, and had confirmed that she had performed court marriage with the accused.

"Taking holistic view of this statement, it appears that the prosecutrix is only complaining about the fact that the accused left her after marriage," the court said.

Further, allegations of criminal intimidation were also missing in her statement under Section 164 CrPC, the court noted. The investigating officer initially sought the cell phone of the complainant to look into the allegations of scandalous texts. However she refused to submit her phone, leading to no evidence being recorded.

"It appears that the complainant chose to file the present FIR on account of frustration post marriage and as pressure tactics to keep the accused with her," the judge said.

The court noted that the complainant's statements under Section 164 CrPC took away the case from the domain of "grave suspicion".

"There must be a grave suspicion against the accused with respect to the commission of the alleged offence. The court must not act as a mere post office and must not only be guided by the endorsement on the chargesheet," it said.

The court found no material on record to frame charges under sections 376 and 506 of the IPC, and thereby discharged the accused. PTI MDB ARB ARB