KANISHK SHARMA Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR bearing no. 99/2021, registered under Ss. 376/377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter 'IPC'] at Police Station Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the victim had approached P.S. Station Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi, alleging that the petitioner herein had established physical relations with her on the false pretext of marriage, on various occasions, since May 2018. It was alleged that the victim had met the petitioner on 17/10/2017 at her workplace, "Teleperformance," in Udyog Vihar, Gurugram, Haryana, where they had been working as colleagues. On 16/12/2017, the petitioner had approached the victim for a romantic relationship, which she had initially refused, but upon his repeated requests, she had agreed to befriend him on 18/12/2017. In January 2018, when the victim had started receiving marriage proposals, she had informed the petitioner, who had assured her of their future together and had persuaded her to reject all other proposals. Subsequently, on 16/2/2018, the petitioner had again proposed her for marriage, which the victim had accepted. In March 2018, the petitioner had taken the victim thrice to Deer Park, Hauz Khas Village, after sunset, where he had attempted to establish physical relations with her. Upon her refusal, he had masturbated in front of her. On one such occasion, he had allegedly forced himself upon her and committed rape. In August 2018, he had again taken her to Deer Park, where he had allegedly performed both anal and vaginal intercourse forcefully, despite her resistance, causing her to bleed. He had then apologized and emotionally manipulated her into continued relations. It was further alleged that the petitioner had repeatedly forced the victim to meet him at his room, where he had engaged in non-consensual anal and vaginal intercourse. On 7/3/2021, despite her resistance, he had performed anal sex, and later vaginal sex, and again, on 15/3/2021, he had engaged in intercourse with her at his room in Gurgaon. Over time, his behavior had changed, and he had started avoiding her. The victim had also financially assisted the petitioner on multiple occasions, lending him approximately ?4-5 lakhs, believing in his assurances of a shared future. On 29/3/2021, when the victim had attempted to contact the petitioner, he had ignored her calls and, upon being reached through his brother-in-law, had given a negative response. He had ultimately refused to marry her and to repay the money. Despite meeting her family 4-5 times and assuring them of marriage, he had later refused to fulfill his commitment. Consequently, on 4/5/2021, the victim had lodged a complaint on these allegations, leading to the registration of the present FIR

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that the petitioner and the victim were in a consensual relationship, and both were major at the relevant time. It is further contended that the victim was well aware of potential obstacles to their marriage, including financial constraints and family opposition, particularly due to the age difference between them. The learned counsel argues that, contrary to the victim's claim that she solely bore the expenses during their trips outside Delhi or otherwise, it was, in fact, the petitioner who had primarily covered such costs. This, it is submitted, contradicts the victim's allegation of financial exploitation. It is further contended that from the very inception of their relationship, the victim was under no misconception of fact regarding the petitioner's ability or willingness to marry her. The learned counsel emphasizes that the victim has made significant improvements in her statement recorded under Sec. 164 of Cr.P.C., which casts doubt on the veracity of her allegations. Additionally, the learned counsel submits that the victim was deeply invested in the relationship and had persistently requested the petitioner for marriage. It is argued that her insistence on marriage contradicts her allegations, as no reasonable explanation has been provided as to why she would continue seeking matrimony with the petitioner despite her claims of forced unnatural intercourse. Therefore, it is prayed that the present FIR be quashed.