{"id":312028,"date":"2024-01-23T16:30:02","date_gmt":"2024-01-23T11:00:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=312028"},"modified":"2024-02-20T16:59:09","modified_gmt":"2024-02-20T11:29:09","slug":"delhi-high-court-refuses-quash-376-fir-based-conduct-of-parties-misguided-facts-misinformed-religious-conversion-issued-guidelines-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/23\/delhi-high-court-refuses-quash-376-fir-based-conduct-of-parties-misguided-facts-misinformed-religious-conversion-issued-guidelines-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Delhi High Court refuses to quash S. 376 IPC FIR based on conduct of parties, misguided facts and misinformed religious conversion"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Delhi High Court:<\/span> A petition was filed by the accused under Article 226 and 227 read with Section 482<\/a> of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)<\/a> for quashing of FIR registered at Police Station for offence under Sections 376<\/a> and 506<\/a> of Penal Code, 1860<\/a>, centers on the conflicting stories presented by the accused and prosecutrix, while the prosecutrix alleging forced sexual assault and the conflicting stand of the petitioner that it was a consensual live-in sexual relationship. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., dismissed the petition refusing to quash the FIR<\/span> highlighting inconsistencies, misconduct, and suspicions on both sides, leading to unresolved questions about the validity of the marriage and the overall credibility of the parties involved.<\/p>\n

According to the prosecutrix, she alleged forced sexual assault, describing a scenario where the accused visited her house, requested food, and allegedly laced a cold drink with sedatives. She claimed that she was raped while unconscious and discovered the incident when she regained consciousness. The accused asserted that the accused threatened her to keep silent about the incident. On the other hand, the accused provided a different narrative during bail proceedings. He claimed to have been in a live-in relationship with the prosecutrix since 2007, with a compromise deed executed in 2012. According to the accused, they resumed living together as husband and wife six months later. He suggested that the prosecutrix registered the FIR due to differences between them. Additionally, the accused informed the court that he married the prosecutrix on 28-10-2022 after 10-days following the registration of the present FIR, as per Muslim customs and rights, after the conversion of the prosecutrix to Muslim religion.<\/p>\n

The issue under consideration is whether in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, where the accused and the prosecutrix have compromised the matter and have married each other, the petition for quashing FIR registered under Section 376<\/a> of IPC<\/a> deserves succeeding in light of the conduct of the parties?<\/p>\n

The Court noted that the questions asked to the prosecutrix about her favorite fruit and color seem irrelevant and possibly inappropriate given the seriousness of the matter at hand. Moreover, it is noted that despite the Magistrate’s assertion that these questions were intended to assess the prosecutrix’s competency to depose in a vernacular language, both the questions and answers were in English. This inconsistency raises questions about the actual purpose of such questions and whether they served the intended function of checking the prosecutrix’s competency in expressing herself in a vernacular language. The use of a typed performa in English for these questions may further add to the confusion. Thus, the court or concerned authorities may scrutinize the way the prosecutrix’s statement was recorded to ensure it was conducted in a proper and relevant manner, adhering to legal procedures and principles. The use of irrelevant questions or language inconsistencies could potentially impact the credibility and reliability of the statement in legal proceedings.<\/p>\n

The Court further noted that recording of statement under Section 164<\/a> Cr.P.C.<\/a> in a case of sexual assault is a critical responsibility of a magistrate as the statements so recorded also becomes part of edifice of building of a case. The Court directed guidelines apropos recording of statement under Section 164<\/a> of CrPC<\/a> of sexual assault victims as under<\/p>\n