Sat. Mar 2nd, 2024

The Delhi High Court has imposed a penalty of Rs 25, 000 on a husband who sought the registration of a purportedly false rape case towards his spouse’s cousin, cautioning towards frivolous complaints that would probably hurt harmless people.

The husband alleged that the cousin had raped his spouse, who vehemently denied the accusations.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta acknowledged that prima facie, the husband initiated the proceedings with ulterior motives, aiming to realize a bonus in ongoing matrimonial proceedings towards his spouse.

The court docket burdened that the prison justice system shouldn’t be burdened by baseless complaints and that the availability of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. shouldn’t be misused.

The husband challenged two court docket orders — one from a Magistrate and one other from a Sessions Court — that had declined to direct the registration of an FIR towards the cousin utilizing Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

In his criticism, the husband mentioned that his spouse had disclosed being raped by her cousin shortly after their marriage. However, throughout court docket proceedings, the spouse refuted these claims, stating that no such incident had occurred and accused her husband of bodily harassment and dowry calls for.

She additionally talked about pending proceedings associated to home violence, upkeep, and divorce.

The court docket, whereas dismissing the plea, famous that the spouse had denied any grievance, and the police’s Action Taken Report supported her place.

It burdened the significance of the Justice of the Peace’s judicial scrutiny in such circumstances, guaranteeing complaints should not filed with malicious intent.

The court docket urged a cautious examination of the credibility of the criticism, declaring the need of particular particulars to keep away from perverted litigation.

Furthermore, the court docket famous that false allegations of rape may severely impression the dignity and popularity of the accused and burdened the importance of the police exercising discretion in not registering an FIR when it could be futile.

The court docket, after cautious consideration, noticed that the petitioner lacked locus standi as his spouse had categorically denied the alleged offence.

In dismissing the petition, the court docket imposed a price of Rs 25, 000/- on the petitioner to be paid to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee inside eight weeks.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *