New Delhi: Taking note of an “alarming scenario” of marriages being entered into to evade criminal charges and later resulting in desertion, the Delhi High Court has refused to quash a First Information Report (FIR) in a rape case.
The HC noted Wednesday that there are numerous cases where a rape accused “deceitfully” marries the woman. However, as soon as the criminal charges of rape are quashed, she is “heartlessly” deserted.
A single judge bench of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma was dealing with the case of a then 17-year-old girl, allegedly forced into having physical relations with the accused, in 2021. The accused, aged 20 at the time, had allegedly blackmailed her with the threat of posting her inappropriate photos online.
Once the girl got pregnant, the accused allegedly “threatened” the girl’s mother, and allegedly forced them to sign documents of marriage and started residing with them at their house.
However, according to the judgment, a copy of which is with ThePrint, the accused continued to “beat and molest” the girl after marriage, and would allegedly try to force her to go in for an abortion. An FIR was registered in 2021, based on the girl’s statement, under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
While the accused claimed in court that it was a case of a “love affair” — a consensual relationship where the parties got married out of their own free will — the court refused to quash the FIR on grounds of marriage as “…even after solemnization of marriage and subsequent immunity from criminal prosecution, the accused heartlessly deserts the victim within a few months”.
‘Result of societal pressure’
Justice Sharma noted that while the marriage took place after the alleged sexual assault, it was only a result of the societal pressure in such cases.
“It is therefore, prima facie clear that the sexual assault had taken place in the year 2021, whereas due to social pressure which exists in many societies, including India, as the victim had become pregnant,” the court said, “the mother of the victim had given in to the pressure of the accused to get her daughter married to him”.
She dismissed the accused’s argument that the victim had consented to the relation, noting that a minor’s consent “was of no consequence for a sexual relationship”. She further recorded the victim’s vehement opposition to any consent.
Justice Sharma’s observations follow several such cases of “compromise” between a rape accused and survivor that have come up in courts across the country.
On 17 June, Justice Samir Dave of the Gujarat High Court reportedly summoned an accused, facing charges under the POCSO Act, to ascertain whether a “compromise” was possible considering the victim was pregnant.
In another case reportedly heard in the Punjab HC this April, the court made it clear that the FIR against an accused who had married the rape survivor could be quashed as “married life” cannot be disturbed.
In a case before the Himachal Pradesh HC in 2021, the police allegedly pressured the complainant and her family to reach a compromise with the accused.
(Edited by Smriti Sinha)
Also read: Psychiatric report, conduct in jail — what led Delhi HC to commute death sentence of minor’s killer