High Court Confirms Trial Court's Framing of Charges Under IPC Sections 376(2)(n) and 377
In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has upheld the trial court's decision to frame charges against Anurag under Sections 376(2)(n) and 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The charges stem from allegations that Anurag engaged in sexual relations with the prosecutrix under the false promise of marriage and subjected her to unnatural sexual acts without consent.
The case involves serious accusations of Anurag misleading the prosecutrix into a physical relationship by falsely assuring marriage, despite being married to another woman. The prosecutrix, who met Anurag through a matrimonial application, alleged that they had a three-year relationship during which Anurag repeatedly promised marriage but later married someone else.
The trial court had framed charges based on prima facie evidence, including the prosecutrix's statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), hotel records, and telephonic recordings. Anurag's counsel contended that the relationship was consensual, citing similar cases where charges were dismissed. However, the High Court found sufficient material to warrant a full trial, emphasizing that evidence presented created a "grave suspicion" regarding Anurag's intent.
The High Court reiterated the limited scope of its revisional jurisdiction, underscoring that interference is only justified in cases of manifest illegality or jurisdictional error. It refused to conduct a mini-trial at the framing charges stage, focusing instead on whether prima facie evidence supports the allegations.
The court distinguished this case from others cited by Anurag's counsel, noting that the prosecutrix was unaware of Anurag's existing marriage during their relationship. This fact alone was sufficient to sustain the charges for trial.
The judgment highlights the court's commitment to ensuring a thorough examination of evidence in cases involving serious allegations such as false promises of marriage and sexual misconduct. Anurag's petition was dismissed, affirming the trial court's decision to proceed with a full trial under the specified sections of the IPC.
Bottom line:-
Revision petition under Sections 401 and 482 Cr.P.C. challenging framing of charges under Sections 376(2)(n)/377 IPC dismissed; court upheld the trial court's order framing charges based on prima facie evidence, including the complainant's statements and supporting materials such as hotel records and telephonic recordings.
Statutory provision(s): 401 Cr.P.C., 482 Cr.P.C., 376(2)(n) IPC, 377 IPC, 161 Cr.P.C., 164 Cr.P.C.
