Putting Vermillion, Garlanding Each Other Sufficient To Induce Belief Of Lawful Marriage: Delhi Court Directs Registration Of FIR In Alleged Rape Case

A Delhi court has directed the Delhi police to register an FIR against a man for allegedly raping a woman on the false pretext of marrying her observing that acts of putting vermillion on head and garlanding each other are sufficient to induce the belief of lawful marriage.

Additional Sessions Judge Arul Varma of Saket Courts directed the police to register FIR within a week against Veer Singh, son of a business tycoon and sought a report of compliance from the concerned DCP on April 03.

Referring to a Supreme Court judgment in Ram Chandra Bhagat v. State of Jharkhand, the court said:

“The above verdict drives home the point that in order to invoke Section 493 IPC, it is not imperative that the sham marriage ceremony would have the trappings of a de rigueur marriage. It would suffice if the woman is made to believe that she was lawfully married to the man, be it by putting vermillion over the head, circumambulating around the chosen deity, garlanding each other etc.”

The court was hearing a criminal revision plea filed by the complainant challenging an order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate on October 20, 2022, refusing to register the FIR against Veer Singh.

It was the complainant’s case that she was induced by Singh to cohabit with him and to establish sexual relations after performing a “sham marriage ceremony.” It was alleged that Singh committed rape upon her and she entered into sexual relations with him on the belief that she was lawfully married to him.

It was also alleged that Singh and his family members organized their marriage ceremony in December 2018 in Taiwan, including post wedding ceremonies like grih pravesh and dhol ceremony. A child was also born from the relationship.

She also alleged that not only Singh deceived her, but he also obstructed her movements and observed her without her consent. It was also alleged that Singh placed CCTVs and baby monitors in the bedrooms and the lobby.

Thus, the complainant sought registration of FIR under sections 341, 342, 344, 354C, 354D, 420, 506 and 120B of IPC read with section 81 of Juvenile Justice, 2015.

Setting aside the impugned order, the court observed that it is a case where prima facie there are allegations of commission of sexual intercourse without the consent of the complainant.

“A perusal of the photographs and videos produced on record reveals prima facie certain essential ceremonies of a de rigueur marriage were performed viz applying of vermillion on the forehead, garlanding each other, applying mehndi and grih pravesh. Such a ceremony is bound to induce the revisionist to believe that a lawful marriage was entered into, and on this basis she agreed to cohabit and have sexual intercourse with Veer Singh,” court said.

On the invokation of offence of voyeurism under section 345C of IPC, the court observed that the provision is one of the “seminal amendments” ushered in ostensibly to protect primarily bodily autonomy.

“It cannot be gainsaid that the home, especially the bedroom and bathroom provide sanctuary to a woman. The expectation of ‘not being observed’ in a private space is nothing but an extension of the fundamental right to privacy. This right inheres in a woman de hors the relationship she shares with the perpetrator,” the court said.

Furthermore, the judge added that there is nothing in the provision which can be construed to grant any exemption to a husband or family member or a live in partner.

“Private acts, including but not limited to breastfeeding, daily ablutions etc. cannot be allowed to be observed by anyone other than the woman in question. In the present case, allegations have been levelled by the revisionist that the respondent Veer Singh has committed the offence of voyeurism against her,” it said.

However, the court said that there was nothing in the complaint to lend credence to the assertions that a case of stalking is made out against Singh.

“Recording of statement of the Buddhist priest/ Rinpoche who conducted the ceremony, the people who attended the alleged wedding, grih pravesh, dhol and other ceremonies, the trader who printed the alleged wedding reception card, the venues where the ceremonies took place, the entries therein and payments made are other facets for which police investigation is thus imperative,” the court added.

The court said that to ignore the alleged conduct of Singh would be akin to giving a license to “licentious men” to break the law and exploit autonomy of a woman with brazen impunity.

“Such an affront to dignity of a woman cannot be brushed under the carpet for it will compound her ignominy. Perhaps it was for instances like these that clause fourthly to Section 375 IPC and Section 493 IPC were enacted. To give teeth to these provisions, robust investigation is a sine qua non. It would be expedient in the interest of justice to investigate the cognizable offences alleged by the revisionist,” it said.