Relationship Breakdown Is Not Ground for IPC Section 376 FIR Filing: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has noted that the dissolution of a relationship cannot be used as justification for making a formal complaint (FIR) under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with the act of rape. The court highlighted this as a well-established legal concept.

The bench of Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain granted anticipatory bail to a man who is accused of forcing physical contact with a lady under false pretenses of marriage, stating that the charges do not imply that the accused did not want to be married.

The lady reportedly filed a First Information Report (FIR) alleging that the guy had slept with her while he was pretending to be her husband. She said that when they were engaged, his family began putting pressure on her father for a dowry, and when he refused, he started to shun her and refused to marry her. The accused’s attorney said that the FIR was filed to hurt his career and that the marriage was called off because the lady and her family had not disclosed her medical conditions.

The government employee petitioner said in court that being imprisoned in a baseless and fraudulent prosecution would cause him to suffer “irreparable loss” and lose his career. He noted, “The petitioner has roots in society and will not run from justice.”

The court ruled that this instance did not qualify as a rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). “The court noted that it is a well-established legal principle that an unsuccessful relationship cannot serve as justification for filing a formal complaint for an act that is criminal under Section 376 IPC.

The complainant withheld information about forced sexual intercourse with the accused for more than four months, the court continued. “It was concluded that a trial would be necessary to ascertain whether or not the petitioner had physical contact with the complainant with her agreement since it could not be resolved without proof. It is claimed that the petitioner works for the government. It said that there is no chance the petitioner would abscond from the trial.

“If the petitioner is arrested, they will be granted bail upon providing a personal bond of Rs 30,000 and one surety of the same amount, as determined by the concerned SHO/investigating officer,” the court said.