Delhi High Court: In a criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner before the Court, Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.*, opined that the present case, was a case of twin promise of marriage, and if Respondent 2 had not promised the petitioner, she would not have entered into physical relationship with him. It was also proved that during trial, whether it was breach of promise to marry, or false promise to marry for the sexual relationship, a mini trial could not have been conducted to reach this decision at the stage of framing of charge itself. Thus, the Court opined that there was sufficient material on record to frame charge against Respondent 2 under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC, and accordingly, set aside the impugned order dated 08-06-2023 and directed the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (‘the Sessions Court’), to frame charge against Respondent 2 under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC.
Background
In an instant case, the petitioner was married to her husband, and Respondent 2 was married to her wife. The petitioner knew Respondent 2 prior to their marriages and since, their relationship did not culminate into the marriage, they were married to different partners in 2011. They parted ways and became distant in terms of the countries they chose to live in, as the petitioner settled in India, while Respondent 2 settled in Canada, after marriage. The petitioner and her husband mutually decided to separate from each other and after extensive deliberations, both the families collectively decided that after the divorce, the petitioner would move to Canada with her children, since her family were planning to settle in Canada.
Further, in 2016, the petitioner came in contact with Respondent 2, and started talking to each other. As, both the parties were going through marital challenges in their respective lives, Respondent 2 allegedly assured the petitioner for his desire to marry her and also, gave a commitment to the petitioner and her family. Thereafter, on 05-02-2017, the petitioner and Respondent 2 met each other and after that, Respondent 2 continued to meet her on annual basis. Anticipating marriage between themselves, the parties entered into physical relationship, and both of them initiated divorce proceedings with their respective marital partners.
On 14-06-2020, a Facebook chat was exchanged between the petitioner and Respondent 2, which revealed Respondent 2’s enthusiastic anticipation of becoming the petitioner’s spouse and on 02-11-2020, Respondent 1 visited India and stayed with the petitioner at her flat for twenty-five days, and engaged in physical relations with her on the false pretext of marriage. The petitioner stated that another milestone of their relationship was when on 13-11-2020, the petitioner and Respondent 2, intended to get married and thus, went to a jeweller, to select Mangalsutra design. During this visit, Respondent 2 ordered a Mangalsutra pendant, with his initials and also made a payment for it. Meanwhile, on 26-02-2021, the divorce proceedings of the petitioner and her husband was allowed and divorce was granted.
However, on 20-05-2021, the petitioner received a call, whereby Respondent 2 refused to marry her on the pretext that their relationship had become toxic. Thereafter, on being left with no other option, on 05-06-2021, the present FIR was registered under Sections 376 and 506 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’).
On 08-06-2023, the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (‘the Sessions Court’), discharged Respondent 2 of the offence under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC and observed that the petitioner’s consent was given after active, and reasoned deliberation and consent for sexual relationship was not given out of misconception of fact. The Sessions Court also observed that the present case pertained to breach of promise of marriage, rather than a false promise of marriage.
Thus, the petitioner filed the present criminal revision petition.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that the present case portrayed a very peculiar story, where the parties concerned had not only represented and assured each other that they would be divorcing their respective partners and would get married, but they had also acted upon the promise given to each other. Further, Respondent 2 had also assured the petitioner’s ex-husband, that he would marry the petitioner and would also, take care of the petitioner’s children born from her wedlock with her ex-husband.
The Court opined that while the present Court did not intend to engage in moral policing and comment on the parties conduct regarding continuing their relationship with each other, while being lawfully married to their respective partners, this Court, could not ignore that their respective partners were also aware about their relationship and their intention to get married to each other.
The Court opined that in the present case, the parties decided to marry each other and settle in Canada along with the petitioner’s children after obtaining the divorce from their respective partners. However, Respondent 2, later refused to marry her, though as per the allegations in complaint by the petitioner, Respondent 2 forced her for divorce and on the pretext of marriage, repeatedly engaged in sexual relationship with her. The Court opined that the Mangalsutra, also reflected Respondent 2’s intention to marry the petitioner. Thus, it was a case of twin promise of marriage, and had he not promised her, she would not have entered into physical relationship with him. It was also proved that during trial, whether it was breach of promise to marry, or false promise to marry for the sexual relationship, a mini trial could not have been conducted to reach this decision at the stage of framing of charge itself.
Further, regarding discharge of Respondent 2 under Section 506 of the IPC, the Court noted that there were specific allegations in the FIR that Respondent 2 refused to marry the petitioner and had abused and threatened to kill her and her children. Further, on 01-06-2021, Respondent 2 again extended such threats, after which the petitioner approached Delhi Commission for Women and Police. Therefore, the Court opined that though the veracity of these allegations could only be tested during the course of the trial, the material on record at the present stage was sufficient and strong enough to frame charges against Respondent 2 for commission of offence under Section 506 of the IPC.
The Court opined that there was sufficient material on record to frame charge against Respondent 2 under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC, and accordingly, set aside the impugned order dated 08-06-2023 and directed the Sessions Court to frame charge against Respondent 2 under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC.
[X v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 311, decided on 03-01-2024]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Samridhi Arora, Sanjana and Tanya Singh, Advocates.;
For the Respondents: Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State with SI Aarti Yadav, P.S. Sagarpur, Shekhar, Advocate
