The Delhi High Court has reiterated that while a judge's personal moral views should not influence legal adjudication, courts must consider the social background in which offenses occur.

The Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made this observation while dismissing a plea by an accused challenging the trial court's decision to frame charges against him in a rape case. The complainant alleged that the accused had engaged in a sexual relationship with her under the false pretext of marriage.

According to the FIR, the complainant initially did not know that the accused was already married. When she later confronted him, he assured her that he would divorce his wife, leading her to continue the relationship.

Court's Findings

Rejecting the accused's plea for discharge, the Court noted that both the prosecutrix and the accused were in legally subsisting marriages at the time of their relationship. However, while the accused was aware of the prosecutrix's marital status, she claimed to have been unaware of his.

The Court further observed that the prosecutrix, who was not highly educated, had relied on notarized documents executed between her and her husband, which recorded their mutual consent for separation. However, it clarified that such notarized affidavits do not constitute a legal divorce.

"In the present case, considering the prosecutrix’s background, she may have believed that executing notarized documents of divorce was sufficient to establish her status as divorced. Although such a document does not hold legal validity, her reliance on it lends prima facie credence to her claim that she was promised marriage by the accused and, based on this promise, she chose to separate from her husband and enter into the relationship," the Court noted.

The Court held that the veracity of the complainant's claims could only be determined through evidence at trial and concluded that a case for discharge was not made out.

"Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the charge under Section 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS) is made out against the petitioner. The trial court’s order framing charges is sustained, though on modified grounds," the Court stated.

Cause Title: Himanshu Singla v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. [Neutral Citation No. 2025: DHC: 500]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocates Akshay, Anurag S. Tomar

Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Naresh Kumar Chahar

Click here to read/download the Judgment