The Delhi High Court ruled that a woman’s character cannot be used to imply consent, while quashing a rape FIR over inconsistent allegations, cautioning against misuse of rape laws and stressing the need for credible, corroborated evidence.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR registered for alleged offences of rape, unnatural sex, and administering an intoxicating substance (Sections 376, 377, 328, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code), finding the complainant’s statements “riddled with flagrant inconsistencies” and lacking corroborative evidence.
Justice Amit Mahajan, presiding over the petition in CRL.M.C. 483/2020, ruled that continuing the criminal proceedings would amount to an “abuse of process of law” and a “miscarriage of justice.”
Background of the Case
The petition sought the quashing of FIR No. 460/2018, registered at Police Station Fatehpur Beri on October 31, 2018.
According to the prosecution, the complainant (Respondent No. 2) alleged that she met the petitioner in May 2018 and that he forcibly established physical relations in June 2018, later continuing the relationship on the pretext of marriage. She further claimed that he moved into her residence, took her salary amounting to around ₹8 lakhs, and demanded another ₹10 lakhs while threatening to leak her photos and videos.
In her Section 164 CrPC statement, the complainant alleged that the petitioner forced her to consume a spiked cold drink and raped her when she became unconscious. A chargesheet was filed under Sections 376, 328, and 506 IPC, with a supplementary chargesheet adding Section 377 (unnatural offences).
Petitioner’s Submissions
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the FIR was motivated by malice and part of a “honey trap.” It was submitted that the petitioner was a married man with two children, a fact known to the complainant, making any promise of marriage implausible.
The defense also alleged that the complainant had previously filed multiple false rape cases that ended in acquittals, with one judgment even noting that she was herself married. The counsel contended that the case was a clear misuse of the criminal justice process.
Complainant’s Submissions
Counsel for the complainant maintained that the FIR and chargesheet disclosed cognizable offences and that the petitioner’s arguments about her marital status were false and irrelevant. It was argued that the question of consent was a matter for trial and that the petitioner’s allegations about her character were scandalous and immaterial.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
Justice Mahajan noted that while the power to quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised cautiously, it can be invoked when continuing the case would be a clear abuse of the legal process, citing the landmark judgment State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.
The Court observed that although a prosecutrix’s testimony in sexual offence cases carries significant weight, it is not “gospel truth” and requires corroboration when inconsistencies exist, relying on Nirmal Premkumar v. State.
Importantly, the Court emphasized that a woman’s character cannot be used to negate consent, stating:
“The character of a victim, no matter how blemished, cannot be weaponised against her to imply consent. Even a willing companion who accompanies a client in lieu of some consideration can be the victim of rape.”
However, the Court also found that the complainant’s version was “implausible” and “manifestly inconsistent.”
Inconsistencies Highlighted by the Court
- Timeline Discrepancy:
- FIR and Section 164 statement claimed the parties met in 2018.
- The Medico-Legal Case (MLC) stated she had known the petitioner for two and a half years.
- Date of First Incident:
- Section 164 statement said June 2018; the chargesheet stated March 2018.
- The Court held this “skews the entire timeline.”
- Lack of Corroboration:
- No evidence supported the allegation that she was drugged.
- The claim of unnatural sex lacked medical proof despite the complainant alleging treatment at “various hospitals.”
- No Supporting Material:
- No photos, videos, or messages were recovered to substantiate blackmail or threats.
- Petitioner’s Marital Status:
- The Court found it improbable that the complainant was unaware of the petitioner’s marriage, given her claim that they cohabited and knew his family.
The High Court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra, noting that a prolonged relationship is indicative of consensual sexual relations, not one based on a false promise of marriage.
Concluding that the complainant’s versions were “riddled with flagrant inconsistencies” and “brittle due to the absence of corroborative evidence,” Justice Mahajan held that subjecting the petitioner to trial would result in a miscarriage of justice.
The Court ordered that FIR No. 460/2018 and all consequential proceedings be quashed.
“In view of the above, FIR No. 460/2018, including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed,” the judgment concluded.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Dr. Vijay Kumar Shukla, Ms. Nupur Shukla & Mr. Anirudh Gulati, Advocates
The State: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP
Complainant: SI Suruchi, PS- FP Beri Mr. Rishab Kaushik, Advocates, Complainant in person
Case Title:
PARAG PRAKASH RUDRANGI versus STATE & ANR.
CRL.M.C. 483/2020, CRL.M.A. 2006/2020, CRL.M.A. 25583/2023, CRL.M.A. 19498/2025 & CRL.M.A. 19561/2025
READ JUDGMENT