CASE NAME: H v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
CASE NUMBER: CRL.REV.P. 907/2023
COURT: High Court of Delhi
DATE: 19 December 2025
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Mahajan
FACTS
The petitioner, a woman in this case, married Respondent No. 2 in January 2020 and immediately began residing at her matrimonial home in Jhajjar, Haryana. Shortly after the marriage, she alleged that she endured continuous cruelty and dowry demands from her husband and in-laws. She further claimed that her father-in-law and brother-in-law raper her on multiple occasions after she was unconscious, with other family members being aware of it and complicitly hiding these facts. In March 2020, the ongoing abuse had severely damaged her health, leading to her return to her parental home in Delhi. She then filed an FIR, charging offences under Sections 498A, 406, 376, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, together with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In the course of the trial, the Additional Sessions Judge discharged the father-in-law and brother-in-law from the charge under Section 376 IPC, on the basis that the alleged incidents took place in Haryana and thus lay beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi court. Dissatisfied with this order, she sought redress by approaching the Delhi High Court.
ISSUES
- Whether the Delhi court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the rape offences allegedly committed in Haryana.
- Whether the offences under Section 498A IPC (cruelty) and Section 376 IPC (rape) formed part of the same transaction as contemplated by Section 220 CrPC.
- Whether the discharge of the accused on the grounds of territorial jurisdiction was legally sustainable.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Sections 177, 178, 179, 184, and 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which relate to the place of trial, particularly where offences occur across territories or are interlinked.
- Sections 498A (cruelty by husband or relatives), 406 (criminal breach of trust relating to dowry), 376 (rape), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
- Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, prohibiting the giving and demanding of dowry.
ARGUMENTS
PETITIONER
The petitioner contended that the acts of rape were not seperate incidents but they form as an important part of the continuous cruelty that she had suffered in her marriage. She emphasized that the emotional trauma which resulted from the sexual violence still persisted even after she went back to her parental home in Delhi, thereby vesting jurisdiction with the Delhi courts. Additionally, she criticized the sessions court for taking a technical stance and overlooking the seriousness and interconnected nature of these offences.
RESPONDENT
The respondents maintained that the alleged rapes occured only in Haryana, rendering only courts there competent to try the matter. They cited Supreme Court precedents to argue that offences committed in different locations cannot be combined for trial unless they fall under the same transaction.
ANALYSIS
The Delhi High Court closely examined the framework of territorial jurisdiction under the CrPC and pointed out that Section 177 sets the basic rule for where cases get tried, while Sections 178, 179 and 220 carve out key exceptions in complex scenarios such as the present case. The Court held that sexual assault performed by in-laws as a part of cruelty which already exists in the marriage, it cannot be treated separate from other offences under Section 498A of the IPC. By looking at the intention, continuity and the grave nature of these acts, the Court determined that the alleged rapes and cruelty falls under a single transaction under Section 220 of CrPC, which permitted a joint trial.
Furthermore, the Court distinguished the Supreme Court precedents which the Sessions court relied on, by noting that the facts of the present case indicates clear signs of continuity of conduct and collective intent of several family members, thereby justifying a joint proceeding.
JUDGEMENT
The Delhi High Court set out the discharge order from the Additional Sessions Judge, along with the Magistrate’s order that went along with it. The matter was remitted to the Sessions Court to give it a proper, fresh look on the actual merits. The High Court made it clear that it had expressed no view on whether charges under Section 376 IPC should ultimately be framed.
CONCLUSION
This decision really steps up access to justice for victims facing sexual violence in their marriages. By seeing rape as a brutal extension of cruelty that all ties into one continuous transaction, the Delhi High Court took a real victim-centric approach to reading the criminal procedure rules, making them work for people, not against them and it also mandates holistic evaluation of matrimonial offences.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: ARCHITHA MANIKANTA
