The Delhi High Court, on Friday, quashed rape charges against an accused, noting that he could not have raped the prosecutrix on a false promise of marriage as she was already married.

“When respondent No.2 could not have lawfully married the petitioner on 3rd April, 2016 her allegations that the petitioner played fraud on her in receiving her consent for marriage are unfounded. Thus, even taking the allegations on the face of it on the basis of documents of impeccable character in the form of FIR No.138/2015 lodged at New Ashok Nagar and order dated 9th March, 2016 passed in (HMA No.244/16) the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 376 IPC are not made out,” Justice Mukta Gupta observed.

The Court was hearing a Petition seeking quashing of an FIR filed against the Petitioner under Sections 376 (rape) and Section 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR had been challenged on the ground that the prosecutrix had filed similar complaints against other men. It was also contended that the accused could not have established a physical relationship with her on a false promise of marriage, on the ground that she was an educated lady and had a subsisting marriage. To prove his contentions, the accused had brought on record a similar FIR filed by the prosecutrix against her current husband.

The Court accepted the submissions put forth by the accused, and noted that since only the statement for first motion for divorce by mutual consent had been filed, the prosecutrix’s marriage was still subsisting.

“Once as per the own showing respondent No.2 was having a subsisting marriage with Naveen at the time of alleged offence, she cannot claim that she was forced into sexual relationship on the pretext of marrying and her allegation stands falsified,” it therefore observed.

The Court further opined that the allegations of criminal intimidation were “vague and general” in nature, and thereby, quashed the charges, to “prevent the misuse of the criminal justice system and also to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court.”

Read the Judgment here.