New Delhi, February 18 – The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a woman lawyer challenging the discharge of her former partner and two others in a case alleging rape, fraudulent marriage, unlawful confinement, and criminal intimidation.
The court ruled that the evidence presented indicated a consensual relationship rather than sexual exploitation. A single-judge bench, led by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, upheld the Sessions Court's order discharging Irshad Ali Khan @ Guddu Chaudhary on charges under Sections 376(2)
, 377, 341, 342, 493, 495, 201, 354D, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as charges under Section 506/34 IPC against two other accused.Justice Sharma clarified that the trial would proceed only on charges related to alleged physical assault under Sections 323 and 325 of the IPC.
An FIR was filed at the Jyoti Nagar police station on September 8, 2022, following a complaint by the woman alleging that she had been sexually exploited for years due to deceit, blackmail through alleged compromising photographs, and coercion into marriage.
In its order, the Delhi High Court noted that the relationship between the parties began in 2011 and continued for nearly eleven years. During this time, the woman pursued her LL.B., enrolled as an advocate, and practiced law while residing with the accused. The accused also presented a Nikahnama dated December 14, 2012, which was verified by the Investigating Officer at the Sessions Court's direction.
The Qazi confirmed that the Nikah was solemnized with the free consent of both parties. Independent witnesses from the neighborhood testified that the woman had resided with the accused since 2012 and was known as his wife.
The Delhi High Court noted that official documents, such as the woman's Aadhaar card issued in 2013 and her voter identity card issued in 2017, recorded her address as "c/o Irshad Ali Khan" and listed his name as her husband.
Justice Sharma observed that while delays in reporting sexual offenses are not inherently problematic, the "significant and unexplained delay of nearly eleven years" in filing the FIR, coupled with the surrounding circumstances, was a relevant factor at the stage of charges.
"In these circumstances, the Sessions Court cannot be faulted for concluding that the evidence presented is insufficient, even at a preliminary stage, to establish charges under Sections 376(2)
or 377 of the IPC," the judgment stated.Rejecting allegations of a fraudulent marriage, the Delhi High Court ruled that the evidence indicated that the woman was aware and voluntarily participated in the relationship.
"Given this evidence, it cannot be said that the accused (respondent no. 2) engaged in any deceit or concealed material facts related to his religion or marital status in order to induce the woman to believe that she was his lawfully married wife," it stated.
The Delhi High Court also found no specific evidence to support charges of unlawful restraint or confinement under Sections 341 and 342 of the IPC. Furthermore, the mere presence of the other accused near the woman's residence did not satisfy the essential elements of criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the IPC.
However, Justice Sharma found prima facie evidence for offences under Sections 323 and 325 of the IPC, noting that a medical examination conducted shortly after the FIR was registered revealed a fracture in the woman's hand, which was deemed to be a serious injury.
"The existence of such an injury, as evidenced by contemporaneous medical evidence, provides prima facie corroboration for the allegation of physical assault," the judgment stated.
In concluding remarks, Justice Sharma cautioned against using failed relationships as grounds for criminal prosecution, emphasizing that "criminal law, particularly in cases arising from intimate relationships, must be applied with caution."
"Consent, when freely given with full awareness of material facts and sustained over a considerable period, cannot be retrospectively withdrawn to convert a consensual relationship into a criminal offence simply because the relationship has broken down," the Delhi High Court said.
"Criminal law cannot be used as a tool for retaliation, pressure, or personal vendetta arising from a relationship that has irretrievably broken down. Its purpose is to punish conduct that is inherently criminal," it added.
Dismissing the revision petition, the Delhi High Court stated that it found "no flaw or illegality" in the Sessions Court's order and clarified that its observations would not influence the trial on the remaining charges.
