Delhi High Court: In a revision petition stemmed from long-standing consensual marital inter-faith relationship between the prosecutrix-wife and Respondent 2-husband, challenging Session Court’s order which discharged husband for offences including rape, unnatural offences, deceitful marriage, criminal intimidation and wrongful confinement, a Single Judge Bench of Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., upheld the Session Court’s order. The Court held that consent given freely cannot be retrospectively withdrawn to criminalise consensual relationship which had ended.
“A relationship known to society and affirmed by conduct cannot later be retrospectively labelled as criminal solely because it did not culminate in the manner expected by one party.”
Factual Matrix
The prosecutrix alleged that she met Respondent 2 in 2011 at Karkardooma Courts, where he introduced himself as a Hindu and unmarried and developed a relationship with her. It was alleged that he subjected her to non-consensual physical relations, took nude photographs, and continued to exploit her by threatening to make them public.
According to her, on 14 January 2015 she was coerced into marriage as per Hindu rites and later discovered that he was Muslim and already married with three children. She further alleged cruelty, forced sexual relations, wrongful confinement, and intimidation. She left his house in October 2021 and began residing in Meerut. It was alleged that Respondents 2—4 visited Meerut and attempted to threaten her. Her medical examination recorded a fracture in her hand.
During investigation, however, material surfaced showing a long cohabitation between the parties. A Nikahnama dated 14 December 2012 was verified on the directions of the Sessions Court; independent witnesses stated that the prosecutrix had been residing with the accused as his wife since 2012; official documents such as Aadhaar and voter identity card reflected her address as of Respondent 2 and described him as her husband. Photographs showed the prosecutrix accompanying Respondent 2 in Bar election activities about one month prior to the FIR. In a prior complaint withdrawn by her in May 2022, she herself acknowledged meeting his wife and children without objection. Further, there was a delay of nearly 11 years in lodging the FIR.
The Sessions Court, vide order dated 15 April 2024, discharged Respondent 2 of offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 377, 341, 342, 493, 495, 201, 354-D and 506, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and directed him to face trial only for offences under Sections 323 and 325 IPC and Respondents 3 and 4 were discharged of the offence under Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC.
Court’s Analysis
Court’s duty at stage of framing of charge and discharge
The Court referred to Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohd. Maqbool Magrey, (2022) 12 SCC 657 and Anand Rai v. State of M.P., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 187 and noted that trial court has duty to apply its mind at the time of framing of charge and not to act as a “post office”. The evaluation of the material at the time of framing charge should be the material that is produced and relied upon by the prosecution and the same should raises a strong suspicion of the accused having committed the offence; it cannot conduct a “mini-trial”. At the same time, a person cannot be subjected to the “strain, stigma and uncertainty of criminal proceedings” in the absence of a prima facie case.
The Court held that “at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence or to assess its probative value as would be required at the stage of trial”. But, at the same time, the power to frame a charge should not be exercised in a mechanical or routine manner. If on the face value the material does not disclose a prima facie case or does not give rise to any strong suspicion, the Court is expected to exercise its power of discharge.
Examination of material on record
At the outset, the Court noted that although the prosecutrix’s statements were largely consistent, the surrounding circumstances presented a different picture. The verified Nikahnama, official identity documents, independent witnesses, and long cohabitation demonstrated a consensual and publicly acknowledged relationship. In a prior complaint withdrawn by her in May 2022 recording “aur 14 December 2012 ko nikah kiya tha”, she herself acknowledged meeting his wife and children without objection. Further, the prosecutrix had pursued legal education, practised as an advocate, and moved freely in society and openly represented herself as Respondent 2’s wife during the entire period.
The Court rejected wife’s contention that the material placed on record could not be relied on. The Court noted that aforesaid material was not placed on record by the prosecutrix but by Respondent 2 along with his discharge application, pursuant to which the Sessions Court directed its verification by investigating officer, thereby bringing a materially different picture before the Court.
The Court relied on Nitya Dharmananda v. Gopal Sheelum Reddy, (2018) 2 SCC 93, where the Supreme Court held that “although the Court ordinarily proceeds on the basis of the material produced along with the charge-sheet while dealing with the issue of charge, it is not debarred from summoning or relying upon material of sterling quality which may have been withheld by the investigator or the prosecutor, even if such material does not form part of the charge-sheet.”
The Court further observed that the unexplained delay of nearly 11 years, coupled with continued cohabitation and public representation as wife, weighed against the allegations of sustained sexual exploitation.
Alleged offences against respondents
The Court found that the relationship commenced in 2011 and continued nearly 11 years; Nikahnama was produced and verified; Quazi confirmed solemnisation of Nikah, independent witnesses consistently stated that the prosecutrix resided with Respondent 2 as his wife since 2012; Aadhaar and Voter ID recognised Respondent 2 as her husband and allegation of blackmail through obscene photographs remained vague with no recovery despite Section 91 notices. In these circumstances, the Court held that the material was insufficient even at a prima facie stage to frame charges under Section 376(2)(n) or Section 377 IPC and subjecting Respondent 2 to trial for such grave offences would be unwarranted.
The Court found no prima facie material of deceit or concealment for offences under Sections 493 and 495 IPC as the Nikah was verified and the prosecutrix’s own earlier statement acknowledged knowledge of the accused’s family and first wife. With regard to wrongful restraint and confinement, the Court noted that the allegations were general and unsupported by any complaint, PCR call or independent evidence, and were contradicted by her active professional life. Further, no specific overt act was attributed to Respondents 3 and 4 and mere presence in the vicinity does not satisfy the ingredients of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC.
However, the Court noted that the medical record showed a grievous fracture injury which constituted prima facie material for offences under Sections 323 and 325 IPC. Therefore, the Sessions Court was correct in retaining charges under these provisions.
Criminal law in intimate relationships
The Court emphasised that criminal law must remain “a shield for the vulnerable, not a weapon in the hands of the disenchanted” and cannot be used to rewrite the history of a long, voluntary relationship.
“Consent, when freely given with full awareness of material facts and sustained over a considerable period, cannot be retrospectively withdrawn so as to convert a consensual relationship into a criminal offence merely because the relationship has broken down.”
The Court asserted that inter-faith relationships between consenting adults are not prohibited. When an educated adult individual knowingly enters into a relationship, participates in ceremonies under different religious customs, and continues that relationship over a long period, “the law cannot later be invoked to erase the consequences of that choice merely because the relationship has soured. Courts are not forums to undo conscious decisions taken with open eyes.”
The Court emphasised that “irrespective of gender or faith, personal autonomy carries personal responsibility. The justice system cannot be turned into a forum for undoing conscious decisions taken by adults in full possession of their faculties”.
Court’s Decision
The Court found no illegality or infirmity in the Sessions Court’s order and upheld the discharge of the accused for all offences except Sections 323 and 325 IPC.
[A v. State, CRL.REV.P. 1008/2024, Decided on 17-02-2026]
*Judgment by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Nitesh Saini and Dr. Ashwani Bhardwa, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar with Ms. Amisha Dahiya, with SI Rakhi, Mr. M. Rais Farooqui and Mr. M.Asad Beig, Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4