CASE NAME: MS A v. State & Ors.
CASE NUMBER: Criminal Revision Petition 1008/2024
COURT: High Court of Delhi
DATE: 16 February 2026
QUORUM: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
FACTS
The Petitioner approached the High Court, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15 April 2024, wherein the respondents had been discharged from punishable offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.
On 07 September 2022, the Petitioner approached the police station in a frightened condition and lodged a complaint against Respondent No. 2, Guddu, who claimed to be a Hindu and unmarried, and developed a relationship with her. During their relationship, Respondent No. 2 subjected the Petitioner to non-consensual physical relations, took her nude photographs, exploited her sexually, and blackmailed her into making the photographs public. The Petitioner was coerced into marriage with Respondent No. 2, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. She subsequently discovered that he was a Muslim, by religion and was already married and had three children. She was thereafter subjected to cruelty, physical assaults, forced sexual relations and unlawful confinement. When the Petitioner attempted to approach the authorities, Respondent No. 2, being an advocate, used his influence to intimidate her and compelled her to withdraw her complaints. On 25 October 2021, she left her matrimonial home and began residing in Meerut. Soon after, Respondent No. 2 traced her and, along with Respondent No. 3 and 4, visited Meerut with the intent to cause her harm and roamed around her place of residence. In March 2022, she attempted to lodge a complaint, but it was withdrawn due to pressure exerted by Respondent No. 2. She was allegedly taken back to his house and confined. The Petitioner thereafter lodged the present FIR, while concealing herself from Respondent No. 2.
ISSUES
- Whether a prima facie case of rape/ unnatural sex under Sections 376(2)(n) & 377 IPC was made out, or whether the relationship appeared consensual.
- Whether offences relating to deceitful marriage under Sections 493 & 495 IPC were prima facie established, considering the alleged Nikahnama and documents relied upon by the accused.
- Whether other connected charges of wrongful confinement, intimidation, stalking, and destruction of evidence survive once the main allegations fail.
- Whether the Sessions Court was justified at the discharge stage in relying on defence documents and in concluding that no sufficient ground existed to proceed to trial.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Sections 323. 325, 34, 376(2)(n), 377, 341, 342, 493, 495, 201, 354D and 506 of the IPC, 1860.
ARGUMENTS
PETITIONER:
The counsel on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the impugned order was legally unsustainable, perverse and suffered from serious infirmities. The counsel further contended that the allegations contained in the complaint, the charge-sheet, and the statement of the Petitioner disclosed a prima facie case of repeated and continuous sexual exploitation by Respondent no. 2. The counsel contended that the Nikahnama was forged as the Petitioner denied having signed the same, nor was the Qazi examined to substantiate the alleged marriage. The only marriage solemnised on 4 January 2015 was a result of coercion and threats. They contended that the Sessions Court erred in relying upon photocopies of documents produced by the Respondent and ignored material medical evidence and injury records. Further, they submitted that Respondent No. 2 failed to hand over the mobile phone containing the obscene photographs. The counsel prayed that the impugned order be set aside.
RESPONDENTS:
The counsel on behalf of the Respondents submitted that the relationship between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 was long-standing and purely consensual. They contended that Respondent No. 2 solemnised a Nikah in 2012, and the physical relations were voluntary and with free consent. The material evidence depicted their harmonious relationship over a substantial period of time, during which the Petitioner pursued her LL.B. degree and subsequently enrolled as an advocate, and the expenses were borne by Respondent No. 2. They further contended that Respondent no. 2 has been falsely implicated with ulterior motives and the allegations of rape had been levelled only after disputes arose between them. The counsel submitted that Respondent No. 2 had been rightly discharged, and the allegations against Respondent No. 3 and 4 were vague as no material evidence suggests any overt act, threat, or act of intimidation.
ANALYSIS
The Hon’ble Court observed that where the material, even if taken at face value, does not disclose a prima facie case or does not give rise to any strong suspicion, the law mandates the Court to exercise its power of discharge, which acts as a statutory safeguard intended to prevent an accused from being subjected to criminal trial in absence of prima facie case against him. The court observed that the consistency of the allegations put forth by the Petitioner, by itself, cannot be the sole basis for framing charges, especially when evidence shows a different complexion of their relationship. It was observed that when the Sessions Court was directing verification of the documents, the Petitioner did not choose to challenge or assail any of those orders. It further stated that documentary material, such as the address on the Aadhaar Card, cannot be brushed aside while assessing whether a prima facie case of rape, deceitful marriage or sexual exploitation is made out. The court noted that there was an inordinate and unexplained delay of nearly eleven years in lodging the present FIR and found the allegation of continuous sexual assault and blackmail to be vague and unsubstantiated. The court stated that the record indicated knowledge and voluntary participation, and consequently, no offence under Sections 493 or 495 of the IPC is made out, and the ingredients of wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement are not borne out from the material on record. There was no material on record to even prima facie establish the existence of any such photographs or videos. The court deemed it crucial to observe that criminal law, particularly in cases relating to intimate relationships, must be applied with circumspection.
JUDGMENT
The Hon’ble Court held that the Sessions Court had examined the material on record in detail, and the High Court found no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The present Petition was dismissed.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the present case reaffirms that criminal prosecution must be grounded in credible material evidence. It emphasised that consent, evidence, unexplained delay and the overall conduct are decisive at the charge stage and that the criminal law must be applied with restraint, especially in intimate relationship disputes, to prevent misuse and unwarranted trials.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: STUTI ANVI
