New Delhi [India]: The Delhi High Court has refused to quash an FIR lodged against a Sub-Inspector of Delhi Police in an alleged rape case on the pretext of marriage.
According to the FIR lodged at Shakarpur Police Station, the victim was allegedly taken to Shimla and Kangra in January 2021. At the Jwala Devi Temple, the accused put a tilak on the forehead of the victim and tied a thread around her neck. Thereafter they stayed at the hotel in Kangra and had physical relations. The victim had clearly stated that this was with her consent and on trust, as the petitioner assured her that he would talk to his parents and persuade them for their marriage. It was also stated in the FIR that they continued to spend time with each other including at the flat of the petitioner.
Justice Asha Menon, while refusing to quash the FIR, observed, “The continuation of the physical relationship does not negate the claim of the petitioner that she trusted the petitioner’s word of marriage with her. She was turned away in September 2021. The FIR was registered on November 9, 2021, clearly without delay.”
The bench noted that the complainant had first met the petitioner in April 2020, when she had gone to Shakarpur police station to make a complaint and where the petitioner was posted as Sub Inspector.
In July/August 2020, the petitioner had given her a laced cold drink but he did not establish any physical relationship. It was only in January 2021 at Kangra after the tilak and thread tying at the temple, that they had their first sexual relationship, the bench noted in the order passed on July 8.
The counsel for the petitioner Cop had submitted that the parties were in a consensual relationship. This FIR is a result of non-payment of the remaining Rs 50,000 out of Rs 3,50,000.
It was also contended that the relationship between the parties was ended on the account of the fact that she had a relationship with another man when the petitioner was at his training camp.
“Whether the relationship had broken on account of some act of fidelity of the complainant as alleged by the petitioner, would also be a matter of evidence and cannot be presumed in the favour of the petitioner to hold that no offence was disclosed, as the relationship was founded on consent,” the court noted.