Delhi High Court Imposes ₹25K Cost On Husband Who Sought Registration Of Fake Rape Case Against Wife's Cousin

The Delhi High Court has imposed of cost of Rs. 25,000 on a husband for seeking registration of a fake rape case against his wife's cousin, alleging that the said cousin raped her. The allegations were denied by the wife.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta observed that prima facie, the proceedings were initiated by the husband with oblique motives and intention to gain some advantage in the matrimonial proceedings against his wife.

“The wheels of criminal justice system cannot be permitted to be clogged by frivolous complaints wherein the victim herself does not have a grievance but the same is maliciously filed on her behalf. This may be an agonizing way of harassment not only to the spouse but a person who may be innocently framed and prosecuted,” the court said.

The husband had challenged two orders passed by an MM court and a sessions court refusing to direct registration of an FIR against the cousin by exercising powers under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

In his complaint, the husband alleged that after few days of the marriage, his wife had disclosed that she was raped by her cousin and that her mother threatened her to not disclose the same to anyone. However, before the trial court, the wife informed that nothing as alleged by the husband had ever happened and that he was harassing her physically as well as for dowry. She also informed that proceedings regarding Domestic Violence, maintenance as well as divorce were pending between the parties.

It was the husband's case that the MM court as well as the sessions court misdirected themselves by not directing the registration of FIR, since the facts disclosed commission of cognizable offence and the evidence could only be collected by the Police.

While dismissing the plea, Justice Mendiratta noted that in the Action Taken Report filed by the Police, it was submitted that the wife did not have any grievance and had denied the incident of rape

The court said that merely because an information was allegedly disclosed by the wife regarding commission of offence to the husband, it cannot give rise to the cause of action when she herself had categorically denied any such offence having been committed by her cousin.

“Obviously, petitioner who is an Advocate intends to obliquely use the proceedings and gain some advantage in the pending matrimonial proceedings against his wife,” the court said.

It added: “It is pertinent to observe that when an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is filed by an applicant, the Magistrate is empowered to verify the veracity of complaint by calling of Action Taken Report to ascertain if any action has been taken by the Police and also ensure that complaint may not have been filed with oblique motives to harass a person or settle the scores.”

Furthermore, the court said the application of judicial mind while exercising power to direct registration of FIR is of utmost importance not only to assess the disclosure of commission of cognizable offence but to rule out the possibility of harassment by unscrupulous elements by making bald allegations.

“If the allegations are vague and non-specific, the directions may not be issued for registration of FIR, since the power to investigate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on one end intends to check arbitrariness by the police authorities to not to carry out investigation in cases where it is warranted, and on the other hand also to ensure that same is not invoked at whims and fancies of the complainant,” the court said.

It added merely alleging disclosure of cognizable offence may not be sufficient to issue directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. if the same lacks credibility and is bereft of necessary details as to the time and date of commission of offence and appears to be perverted litigation.

The court further said that any allegation of rape not only puts a question mark on dignity of the woman but also may lead to harassment and affect reputation and life of another person and thus, the Action Taken Report by the Police cannot be brushed aside lightly.

It added that having received the communication from the complainant that no such incident had occurred, the police had rightly exercised the discretion to not to register the FIR as it would have been a futile exercise.

“The petition being without any merits, is dismissed with a cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) to be paid to Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within eight weeks,” the court ordered.

The petitioner appeared in person. APP Meenakshi Dahiya appeared for the State.

Title: SK v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 98

Click Here To Read/Download Order