Some individuals misuse Section 376 of the IPC to intimidate their male partners: Delhi High Court dismisses rape case.

The Delhi High Court dismissed a rape case after finding that both parties had agreed to engage in a physical relationship. The Court noted that the FIR was filed under section 376 of the IPC, which addresses serious crimes against women, but highlighted that some individuals misuse it to harass men. The petition was submitted under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to cancel the FIR filed under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh stated that this case exemplifies how an innocent person can suffer due to the misuse of legal provisions, and he believed that pursuing the case further would not yield any results.

Advocate R. K. Ruhil represented the petitioner, while APP Satish Kumar represented the respondents. The petitioner’s lawyer argued that the complainant and the petitioner were in a consensual relationship and had engaged in physical relations willingly. The FIR and the statement given under Section 164 of the CrPC showed no claims that the petitioner had misled the complainant into a physical relationship under false pretenses of marriage. It was also noted that the marriage did not occur because the complainant was not interested, which was clear as the petitioner was willing to marry her despite his family’s objections. The petitioner provided WhatsApp messages and audio recordings that supported his position and did not suggest any actions that would justify charges under Section 376 of the IPC.

After reviewing the FIR and the statement made under Section 164 of the CrPC, it was clear that although the complainant accused the petitioner of misconduct from 2015, the two had a roka ceremony in 2019. Regarding the claim of sexual assault on March 19, 2020, the petitioner provided an alibi, which was supported by his duty records from PHS Dariyawala, Jind, Haryana, and a follow-up report from the state. The complainant’s statement also indicated that both parties intended to marry, but their families opposed it due to caste issues. The Bench noted that even with the petitioner’s family’s concerns, he was willing to marry the complainant, but she later lost interest and began a relationship with someone else.

The WhatsApp messages between the individuals indicate that the complainant had sent multiple messages to the petitioner, informing him of her choice to marry someone else. This suggests that the current FIR is merely an afterthought. Additionally, the evidence on record, including recordings, WhatsApp messages, and the statement made under Section 164 of the CrPC, clearly shows that the elements of Section 376 of the IPC are not satisfied, as both parties had consensually agreed to engage in a physical relationship without any false promise of marriage. The Court noted that while the law under which the FIR was filed addresses serious crimes against women, it is also recognized that some individuals misuse it to unjustly target men. Therefore, the Court exercised its discretion to grant the Petition and dismissed the FIR filed under Section 376 of the IPC along with all related proceedings.

Cause Title: Suraj Parkash v. State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr [Neutral Citation: 2024: DHC: 9384]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates R. K. Ruhil, Anil Kumar, Rahul Kasana
Respondents: APP Satish Kumar, Advocates Kaadambari Singh, Muskaan Chawla Tanya Singh Kaurav, Sheetal (PS Hauz Khas)