New Delhi, Feb 18 (NationPress) The Delhi High Court has denied a revision petition filed by a female attorney contesting the discharge of her ex-partner and two others in a case that included allegations of rape, deceitful marriage, wrongful confinement, and criminal intimidation.

Determining that the evidence presented indicated a long-term consensual relationship rather than sexual exploitation, a single-judge bench led by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma affirmed the Sessions Court’s ruling that discharged Irshad Ali Khan aka Guddu Chaudhary from charges under Sections 376(2)(n), 377, 341, 342, 493, 495, 201, 354D, and 506 of the IPC, along with charges under Section 506/34 IPC against the two co-accused.

Justice Sharma specified that the trial would continue solely for offences under Sections 323 and 325 IPC concerning alleged physical assault.

On September 8, 2022, an FIR was registered at Jyoti Nagar police station after a complaint was lodged by the prosecutrix, alleging years of sexual exploitation through deceit, blackmail related to alleged lewd photographs, and coercion into marriage.

The Delhi High Court noted that the relationship between the parties began in 2011 and lasted nearly eleven years. During this time, the prosecutrix completed her LL.B., became an advocate, and practiced law while living with the accused. A Nikahnama dated December 14, 2012, presented by the accused was validated by the Investigating Officer as directed by the Sessions Court.

The Qazi confirmed the solemnization of the Nikah with both parties' consent. Independent neighborhood witnesses testified that the prosecutrix had lived with the accused since 2012 and was known as his wife.

According to the Delhi HC, official documents such as the prosecutrix’s Aadhaar card issued in 2013 and her voter ID from 2017 listed her address as “c/o Irshad Ali Khan” and identified him as her husband.

Justice Sharma pointed out that while a delay in reporting sexual offenses is not inherently detrimental, the “inordinate and unexplained delay of nearly eleven years” in filing the FIR, along with the surrounding circumstances, was a pertinent factor at the charge stage.

“In these circumstances, the learned Sessions Court cannot be criticized for determining that the material on record is insufficient, even at a prima facie stage, to frame charges under Sections 376(2)(n) or 377 IPC,” the judgment stated.

Rejecting claims of deceitful marriage, the Delhi High Court asserted that the evidence indicated the prosecutrix’s knowledge and voluntary involvement.

“Given the aforementioned material, it cannot be concluded that respondent no. 2 (accused) practiced any deceit or concealed essential facts regarding his religion or marital status to induce the prosecutrix into believing she was his legally wedded wife,” it asserted.

The Delhi High Court also did not find specific evidence to substantiate charges of wrongful restraint or confinement under Sections 341 and 342 IPC, noting that the mere presence of co-accused near the prosecutrix’s residence did not meet the necessary elements of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC.

Nonetheless, Justice Sharma identified prima facie evidence for offences under Sections 323 and 325 IPC, noting that a medical examination conducted shortly after the FIR indicated a fracture in the prosecutrix’s hand, classified as grievous.

“The presence of such injury, as reflected in contemporaneous medical evidence, provides prima facie support for the allegation of physical assault,” the judgment concluded.

In significant closing remarks, Justice Sharma cautioned against transforming failed relationships into criminal cases, emphasizing that “criminal law, especially in cases stemming from intimate relationships, must be applied with caution.”

“Consent, when freely given with complete awareness of material facts and maintained over an extended period, cannot be withdrawn retrospectively to convert a consensual relationship into a criminal offense merely because the relationship has soured,” the Delhi High Court stated.

“Criminal law should not serve as a tool for retaliation, pressure, or personal vendetta arising from a relationship that has irreparably broken down. Its purpose is not to penalize disappointment or unmet expectations but to punish conduct that is inherently criminal,” it added.

By dismissing the revision petition, the Delhi High Court found “no infirmity or illegality” in the Sessions Court’s decision and clarified that its observations would not affect the trial concerning the remaining charges.