The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that engagement does not give prospective bridegroom right to sexually exploit fiancée without her consent.
The single judge bench of Justice Vivek Puri observed that it is a case of the prosecution that there was refusal on the part of the prosecutrix and despite that the petitioner entered into sexual relationship.
The court noted that there is lack of material to indicate that the prosecutrix had consented for any such relationship.
It was further observed by the court that it is not borne out that at any point of time, the prosecutrix has voluntarily consented for the sexual intercourse.
The court stated that the parties were engaged and were meeting each other, it cannot give any right or liberty to the proposed bridegroom to sexually exploit the fiancée without her consent.
“The petitioner cannot get any leverage to physically exploit the fiancée against the consent during the period intervening the engagement and the marriage” the bench added.
The FIR has been registered on the allegations that the roka ceremony of the petitioner was held with the petitioner and the date of marriage was fixed with the consent of the family. On a certain day, the petitioner met the prosecutrix and asked her to form physical relationship, but she refused to do so.
The petitioner again met her in Delhi and took the prosecutrix to Leela Grand Hotel, Karnal, on the pretext that he was tired and wanted to take rest.
The prosecutrix was taken to a room and the petitioner asked her for physical relations, but she refused to do so.
Despite that the petitioner entered into a physical relationship with the prosecutrix and also made her videos.
Senior Advocate Anmol Rattan Sidhu, appearing for the petitioner, contended that the family of the petitioner came to know that the prosecutrix was having love affairs with other male friends and accordingly, marriage was called off.
He submitted that the physical relations were developed with the consent of the prosecutrix. Even subsequent to the occurrence, the whatsapp messages were exchanged which indicate that it was a consensual relationship.
Trishanjali Sharma, DAG, Haryana and Advocate Namit Khurana appearing for the complainant, opposed the bail application on the score that serious allegations of commission of rape have been leveled against the petitioner despite the refusal on the part of the prosecutrix.
The court noted that there is a categorical statement of the prosecutrix that the petitioner entered into physical relationship with her, despite her reluctance, refusal and denial.
It was held that the passive submission on the part of the prosecutrix to the act, cannot be construed as a circumstance to hold that it was a case of consensual relationship.
The bench while dismissing the petition ordered that no extraordinary circumstances are made out to grant the pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
Case title: Sagar Kapoor v/s State of Haryana
Citation: CRM-M-35393-2022 (O&M)