Dismissed¶35

Randeep Singh v. the State NCT of Delhi through SHO & Anr.

Delhi HC2 Apr 2025CRL.M.C./1562/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR refused — Delhi High Court, Girish Kathpalia J, 02.04.2025, CRL.M.C. 1562/2025 — FIR No. 517/2022 PS Sagarpur, Sections 376/377/506/174A IPC — married prosecutrix and consent held triable issues — compromise document part of chargesheet, to be tested at trial — inherent powers not exercised — false promise of marriage, blackmail via photographs/videos, forced abortion, threat of flesh trade — petition dismissed as frivolous with costs Rs. 15,000/- to DHCLSC — observations no bearing on trial — anticipatory bail history: dismissed 25.08.2022 (Sessions), allowed 24.11.2022 (BA No. 2643/2022).

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's stand that the prosecutrix was a married lady and not a widow is a matter to be decided at trial and cannot support quashing of the FIR. ¶28

Randeep Singh Vs the State NCT of Delhi through SHO & Anr. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR No. 517/2022 and the criminal proceedings arising therefrom ought to be quashed on the grounds that the prosecutrix was a married lady (and not a widow) and that the sexual relations between her and the petitioner were consensual, read with the alleged compromise document between the parties.

¶25

Court's answer

The petitioner's stand that the prosecutrix was a married lady and not a widow is a matter to be decided at trial and cannot support quashing of the FIR.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Even if the prosecutrix were a married lady, whether the sexual relations between her and the petitioner were with her consent would likewise be a question of trial.

¶32

Key takeaways

The alleged document of compromise between the parties already forms part of the chargesheet and has to be tested through the trial; it does not warrant quashing.ratio¶34
This is not a fit case for exercise of inherent powers to quash the FIR and proceedings; the petition is totally frivolous and a complete wastage of judicial time.ratio¶35
Observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the final outcome of the trial.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Girish Kathpalia J, oral judgment, 02.04.2025) dismissed CRL.M.C. 1562/2025 seeking quashing of FIR No. 517/2022 of PS Sagarpur for offences under Sections 376/377/506/174A IPC. The FIR alleged that the petitioner induced the prosecutrix with a false promise of marriage and job promotion, established physical relations, blackmailed her with threats to make her photographs/videos viral, forcibly procured her abortion, revealed he was already married, and threatened to push her into flesh trade. The petitioner's quashing grounds — that the prosecutrix was a married lady (supported by the coordinate bench order of 24.11.2022 in Bail Application No. 2643/2022 allowing anticipatory bail, contrasted with the Sessions Court order of 25.08.2022 dismissing it), that the relations were consensual, and an alleged compromise document forming part of the chargesheet — were held to be matters of trial, not grounds for quashing. The Court declined to exercise inherent powers, branded the petition totally frivolous, dismissed the petition and the accompanying stay application with costs of Rs. 15,000/- to be deposited with DHCLSC within one week, directed a copy of the order to the Trial Court for compliance, and clarified that its observations would have no bearing on the trial. Delay of 29 days in re-filing was condoned (CRL.M.A. 6999/2025).

¶1

$~70

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 02.04.2025

¶4

CRL.M.C. 1562/2025, CRL.M.A. 6997/2025 & CRL.M.A. 6998/2025

¶5

RANDEEP SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Avdhesh Kumar Singh and Mr. Rajendra Kumar Singh, Advocates

¶6

versus

¶7

THE STATE NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SHO & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, APP for the State with W/SI Kamlesh Meena, PS Kishangarh and Investigating Officer/SI Vinod Kumar, PS Sagar Pur

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

¶9

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

¶10

CRL.M.A. 6999/2025 (for condonation of delay of 29 days re-filing)

¶11

For the reasons mentioned therein, the application is allowed and delay in re-filing after removal of defects is condoned.

¶12

CRL.M.C. 1562/2025 & CRL.M.A. 9910/2025 (stay)

¶13

Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 517/2022 of Police Station Sagarpur for offence under Section 376/377/506/174A IPC.

¶14

The allegations leveled against the petitioner in the FIR are as CRL. M.C. 1562/2025 Page 1 of 4 pages

¶15

GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, ou=DELHI HIGH COURT, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, postalCode=110003, st=DELHI, serialNumber=D3E86796451EC45C07B5D15570996B40F80CBD2EEE60402C487965FF801E26FA, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.04.02 18:23:10 -07'00'

¶16

Signature Not Verified

¶17

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 2.04.2025 18:53:05

¶18

follows. The prosecutrix met the petitioner in his factory at Naraina and he induced her with a false promise of marriage as well as of promotion in job. With these assurances, the petitioner started visiting the prosecutrix in her home. Across a period of time, the petitioner also clicked certain photographs with her. Thereafter, the petitioner promised to get married with the prosecutrix and forcibly established physical relations with her. Whenever the prosecutrix would object to physical relations between them, the petitioner used to threaten to make viral, her photographs, so she had no option but to continue facing the sexual exploitation. The prosecutrix became pregnant and the petitioner forcibly got her abortion done. When the prosecutrix insisted for getting married, on the fateful day the petitioner told her that he was already married and she was only his concubine. The petitioner also threatened the prosecutrix to push her into flesh trade and make viral her videos on the internet if she insisted for marriage.

¶19

Learned counsel for petitioner took me through Annexure P-3, which is a copy of the order dated 25.08.2022 of the learned Court of Sessions whereby anticipatory bail application of petitioner was dismissed observing that the complainant is a hapless widow, whose consent was fraudulently procured by the petitioner concealing his marital status. In continuation, learned counsel for the petitioner has further taken me through Annexure P- 5 which is copy of order dated 24.11.2022 of a coordinate bench of this Court in Bail Application No. 2643/2022, whereby anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was allowed in view of the plea taken by the petitioner that the prosecutrix was a married lady and not a widow. In this

¶20

CRL. M.C. 1562/2025 Page 2 of 4 pages

¶21

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 2.04.2025 18:53:05

¶24

regard, the IO took a stand before the said bench that husband of prosecutrix is alive but prosecutrix was not aware about this. Further, learned counsel for petitioner seeks to place reliance on certain documents filed with the Status Report and it is contended by him that the parties had consensual sexual relations.

¶25

Therefore, quashing of the FIR and proceedings is sought on the ground that the prosecutrix was a married lady and the sexual relations between her and the petitioner were with consent.

¶26

In the course of dictation of this order, learned counsel for petitioner also refers to the document Annexure P-7, allegedly a copy of compromise between the parties. It is submitted by learned counsel that this document is a part of chargesheet. Learned counsel for petitioner also refers to Annexure P-1, which is a copy of complaint lodged by wife of the petitioner with various authorities, alleging that the prosecutrix has been threatening the family of petitioner and extorting money. Learned counsel for petitioner also refers to a copy of statement of prosecutrix at pdf page 186 and submits that the prosecutrix was a married lady.

¶27

No other ground of quashing the FIR is raised.

¶28

As appears above, the prosecutrix in her FIR categorically alleged that the petitioner not only made false promise of getting married with her but also compelled her to enter into physical relations. The stand taken by the petitioner that the prosecutrix was a married lady and not a widow would be a matter of trial. Going a step deeper, even if the prosecutrix was a married

¶29

CRL. M.C. 1562/2025 Page 3 of 4 pages

¶30

¶31

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 2.04.2025 18:53:05

¶32

lady, the question as to whether the sexual relations between her and the petitioner were with her consent would also be a question of trial.

¶33

Further, as mentioned above, the prosecutrix in her FIR categorically alleged that the petitioner was blackmailing her with threats to circulate her pictures and videos on the internet. With that blackmail, the petitioner continued to sexually exploit the prosecutrix, as per her, and he even threatened to push her into flesh trade.

¶34

Similarly, the alleged document of compromise between the parties, the same already forms part of chargesheet and has to be tested through the trial.

¶35

I do not find it a fit case to exercise inherent powers in order to quash the FIR and the proceedings. The present petition is totally frivolous and complete wastage of judicial time. Therefore, the petition and the accompanying stay application are dismissed with costs of Rs. 15,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with DHCLSC within one week. In order to ensure compliance qua deposit of costs, copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court.

¶36

However, it is made clear that observations in this order shall have no bearing on the final outcome of the trial.

¶37

GIRISH

¶38

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA GIRISH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, ou=DELHI HIGH COURT, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb 4835d435f97626cacca, postalCode=110003, st=DELHI, serialNumber=D3E86796451EC45C07B5D15570996B40F80C BD2EEE60402C487965FF801E26FA, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2025.04.02 18:22:08 -07'00'

¶39

GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE)

¶40

APRIL 2, 2025/ rs

¶41

CRL. M.C. 1562/2025 Page 4 of 4 pages

¶42

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 2.04.2025 18:53:05

Randeep Singh v. the State NCT of Delhi through SHO & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Randeep Singh v. the State NCT of Delhi through SHO & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aditya @ Jakhmi Vs State NCT of Delhi

Abdullah Vs the State Nctof Delhi

Mohit Juneja Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Achinta Kumar Das Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Manjit Singh @ Manjeet Singh @Gulab Shera Vs State NCT of Delhi

Shaheen Naaz Vs the State (Govt of Nct, Delhi)