Rape Victim's Blemished Character Can’t Be Weaponised Against Her To Imply Consent: Delhi High Court

The Petition before the High Court was filed seeking the quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 376, 328 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Single Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan held, “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. Merely because Respondent No.2 was willing to accompany the petitioner for some money, the same does not indicate that she was also willing to establish sexual relations with him. This Court thus considers it apposite desist from making any remarks against Respondent No.2 in relation to her prior complaints as well as the other allegations made in the pleadings before this Court.”

Advocate Vijay Kumar Shukla represented the Petitioner, while APP Sunil Kumar Gautam represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The FIR was registered in the year 2018 on a complaint made by the second Respondent. It was alleged that in May 2018, the complainant was working at a Mall when she came in contact with the petitioner and they exchanged mobile numbers. Allegedly, in June 2018, the petitioner visited the house of the Respondent victim and forcibly established physical relations with her. It was alleged that the victim kept quiet about the same, as the petitioner told her that he wanted to marry her. The petitioner was allegedly transferred to Pune; however, he kept having physical relations with the complainant on the pretext of marriage.

The petitioner allegedly asked for a sum of Rs 10 lakh from the Respondent and threatened to make her photos and videos viral. During the investigation, the complainant’s statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) was recorded, where she stated that she had met the petitioner at a club, and he had approached her. She stated that the petitioner had offered her Rs 500 to talk to him, which she accepted as she didn’t get any salary from the club. One day, the petitioner was giving a party where he forced the complainant to come. It was alleged that the petitioner took the Respondent to her room and raped her.

Reasoning

Reiterating that the power to quash proceedings is to be exercised sparingly, the Bench held that in cases relating to allegations of sexual assault, the statement of the prosecutrix attains higher significance and the same is sufficient for conviction if it inspires confidence. “This Court cannot be blind to the fact that with the passage of time, there has been an increasing tendency of weaponizing law to wreak vengeance after souring of relationships, which has a chilling effect on genuine survivors. False cases have the effect of tarnishing an individual’s reputation in society and it is the duty of the Court to take into account attending circumstances as well as the material collected during investigation”, it stated.

The Bench noticed that although it was alleged that the first incident of rape took place on some day in June 2018, however, the complaint was only made in October 2018 after the relationship soured following a fight. The allegations related to sexual relations being established on the false promise of marriage and the allegations of unnatural sex pertained to the duration where the parties were in a consensual relationship, as per the Respondent. The Bench found that the relationship between the parties continued over five months, and the complaint was made after the petitioner apparently switched off his phone pursuant to a fight and stopped talking to the Respondent.

The petitioner had sought to cast aspersions on the character of the Respondent by alluding to her implication in a case for offences under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, on account of the previous cases instituted by the Respondent on similar allegations, which resulted in the acquittal and since Respondent had herself stated that she demanded money for giving company to the petitioner.

The Bench noticed that the Respondent had not made any allegation in respect of her feeling dizzy on drinking any cold drink in the initial complaint. No independent witness or evidence was found in this respect either, even though the Respondent was allegedly spiked in a crowded club where she apparently worked. Apart from the statement of the Respondent, no corroborative material in the nature of photographs or videos or conversations reflecting blackmail was found to make out a prima facie case in favour of the prosecution.

The Bench noted that while the Respondent asserted that she had good relations with the family of the petitioner, her statements were abysmally bereft of particulars in relation to the identity of such family members which could have lent credibility to her case. “It appears to be unbelievable that none of such family members mentioned the marital status of the petitioner or that he is the father of two kids to Respondent No.2, and she continued the relation in ignorance of the same”, the Bench stated.

Considering that the versions of Respondent were riddled with flagrant inconsistencies that went root of the matter and the allegations were bereft of material particulars, the Bench held that the continuation of proceedings after half a decade would be an abuse of process of law. Thus, allowing the Petition, the Bench quashed the FIR, including all consequential proceedings.

Cause Title: Parag Prakash Rudrangi v. State (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:9641)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Vijay Kumar Shukla, Nupur Shukla, Anirudh Gulati

Respondent: APP Sunil Kumar Gautam, Advocate Rishab Kaushik, SI Suruchi, Complainant-in-person

Click here to read/download Order