Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court on Monday observed that courts cannot be used as "marriage facilitators" between parties in sexual offence cases and to settle scores or pressure a party to act in a particular manner.

The bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observations while dismissing a pre-arrest bail plea by a man accused in a case of alleged rape of a woman on false pretext of marriage.

The accused, Ravi Bhushan Upadhyay had sought anticipatory bail on the ground that he was ready to marry the victim. In his plea, he stated that the woman's father, who was earlier not ready for the inter-caste marriage, was now prepared to accept the marriage.

“The facts and documents on record, it is clear that the accused as well as the complainant have taken the judicial system and the investigating agencies for a ride and are trying to manipulate the judicial system to their advantage in different ways, one for seeking anticipatory bail though now, non-bailable warrants have already been issued against him since he was absconding and the complainant for getting married to him”, the judge opined.

“In this Court’s opinion, the Courts of law cannot be used as a forum for the purpose of facilitating marriages and be used as marriage facilitators by first lodging an FIR alleging that the accused, after establishing physical relations, had refused to get married to the victim and later appear before the Court for either grant of bail which they have been opposing for many months”, she said.

The single-judge bench noted that there has been a trend in the past to burden the judicial system with such complaints and such cases clog the dockets of the courts.

"In many cases, when bail is granted at the request of the complainant, after some time, applications/petitions for cancellation of bail are filed before this Court on the ground that after obtaining bail, the accused did not fulfil his promise of getting married or that after getting married to the rape victim, the victim was abandoned by the accused," it said.

The judge said that the court cannot be used as “matrimonial facilitators” for the purpose of pressurizing the accused to get married to the victim or be denied bail, or by the accused for obtaining bail by asking the complainant to appear before the Court and state that he was ready to get married to her.

The court said that there was nothing in the trial court proceedings or the earlier proceedings to suggest that the parties were contemplating getting married or that the accused had even admitted to having a consensual relationship with the alleged victim. It also said that it was only at this stage that the accused "presented an entirely contradictory stance of marriage".

"This is nothing short of taking the judicial system and the investigating agency for a ride by both the parties through their conduct and different stands taken before the courts and the investigating agency," the judge observed.

"The judicial system cannot be used either to settle scores with each other or pressurize any party to act in a particular manner to reach one's goal," she added.

Taking note of overall facts and circumstances, Justice Sharma ordered, “This Court does not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail as the case has travelled from the point of lodging of the FIR till the present point of investigation”.

“The truth has to prevail by investigating into allegations for which custodial interrogation of the accused may be required for the purpose of confronting the complainant also with the accused to reach the truth”, she said.

Accordingly, the pre-arrest bail was dismissed.

Case Title: Ravi Bhushan Upadhyay v. The State