News Updates

Cannot Quash Rape Charges Just Because The Accused Married The Complainant: Delhi HC [Read Judgment]

Apoorva Mandhani
4 Aug 2017 9:06 AM GMT
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday relied on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, and refused to quash rape charges against an accused who had gone on to marry the complainant.

“In view of settled legal position enumerated in Gian Singh’s case, (Supra), the criminal proceedings emanating from an FIR registered with allegations of rape, which is an offence against society, despite the alleged marriage of the petitioner with the complainant/respondent No.2, cannot be quashed in exercise of powers vested in this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,” Justice Pratibha Rani observed.

The Court was hearing a Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by one Mr. Vikash Kumar for quashing an FIR under Sections 376(2) (rape by public servant), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.

Mr. Kumar had now submitted that the physical relationship between him and the complainant had been consensual since the beginning, and that they had tied the knot in May this year. Contending that the FIR was frivolous, and was a result of a misunderstanding, he demanded that the same be quashed.

The question now framed by the Court was: “whether the mere fact that the parties have allegedly got married should be a reason good enough to quash the FIR registered under Sections 376(2) (N)/323/506 IPC and consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.”

On an appreciation of several precedents, Justice Rani answered this question in the negative and dismissed the Petition.

Read the Judgment Here

Next Story