Anurag vs State

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: July 10, 2026
% Pronounced on: July 17, 2026

+ CRL.REV.P. 405/2024, CRL.M.A. 9250/2024
ANURAG .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Prince Arora, Mr. Wazid Ali
and Mr. Mitabh Gosain, Advs.

Versus
STATE ....Respondent
Through: Mr. Raghuinder Verma, APP for
the State with Mr. Aditya Vikram
Singh and Ms. Upasna Bakshi,
Advs. alongwith SI Ravinder
Kumar, PS Paharganj. Ms. Isha
Khanna, for the complainant, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

J U D G M E N T


1. By virtue of the present petition under Sections 401 and 482 of the
1
Code of Criminal Procedure Court, 1973 , the petitioner seeks setting
2
aside of the order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the learned Trial Court in
SC No.313/2023 arising out of FIR No.144/2023 registered at PS.: Pahar
Ganj under Sections 376/377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and to
discharge the petitioner.
2. Succinctly put , the prosecutrix came into contact with petitioner
through ‘Jeevansathi’ Application around October 2020, following which,
the two developed a friendship and in fact the petitioner, travelled from his

1
Hereinafter as “ Cr.P.C. ”
2
Hereinafter as “ Impugned order ”
CRL.REV.P. 405/2024 Page 1 of 7

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK
Signing Date:17.07.2026
13:20:37

residence in Haridwar, Uttarakhand, to Delhi to meet the prosecutrix and
discuss their proposed marriage.
3. Thereafter, on 11.01.2021, the petitioner called the prosecutrix to
Hotel Aman Continental, Paharganj, where he established physical/ sexual
relations with her on the false promise of marriage, and then repeatedly
engaged in physical/ sexual relations with her at different hotels on the
same pretext subsequently as well. As per prosecutrix, on certain
occasions, the petitioner forcibly subjected her to unnatural sexual acts
without her consent and on 05.03.2023, the prosecutrix learnt that the
petitioner had married another woman, following which, she lodged the
present FIR against the petitioner.
4. The learned Trial Court has since framed charges under Sections
376(2)(n)/377 of the IPC against the petitioner vide impugned order dated
30.11.2023, which is under challenge by him before this Court.
5. Mr. Prince Arora, learned counsel for petitioner on merits had
submitted that the learned Trial Court erred by not considering that the
relationship inter-se the petitioner and the prosecutrix continued for three
years and it cannot be inferred that physical/ sexual relations were made
without consent on every occasion. Reliance in this regard was placed on
3
the judgement entitled X v. State of Maharashtra . More so, the version
of the prosecutrix is fabricated as the Hotel records show that she herself
submitted her Aadhar Card at check-in/ reception which is contrary to her
claim of merely being called as a guest.
6. Mr. Prince Arora learned counsel further summitted that since the
prosecutrix had met the petitioner again and had physical/ sexual relations

3
2023 SCC OnLine Bom 765
CRL.REV.P. 405/2024 Page 2 of 7

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK
Signing Date:17.07.2026
13:20:37

with him on 09.03.2023, i.e., even after learning about his marriage on
05.03.2023, her version is prima facie inconsistent. In view thereof, the
explanation, i.e., pen drive purportedly containing a telephonic
conversation concerning the meeting dated 09.03.2023, surfaced only
during the bail proceedings which raises doubt on the case of the
prosecution as the same has been wrongly relied upon by the learned Trial
Court, particularly, sans any forensic authentication or perusing its
transcript or listening to the alleged audio recording.
7. Lastly, Mr. Prince Arora, learned counsel relying upon Ankit Raj v.
4 5
State of Delhi & Ors. and Prosecutrix (x) v. State & Anr. passed by Co-
ordinate Bench(s) of this Court, submitted that where the parties have
been in a consensual relationship for a significant period of time and who
being adults are aware of their actions, like the parties herein, charges
under Section 376 of the IPC on the false promise to marriage cannot be
sustained. Thus, he prayed for allowing the present petition.
8. Per contra , Mr. Raghuinder Verma, learned APP controverting the
aforesaid, and supporting the contents of the impugned order, submitted
that the charges have rightly been framed against the petitioner herein. He
submitted that the scope of revision vested with this Court warrants
interference only whence the view adopted by the learned Trial Court is so
inherently improbable that no prudent person could have arrived at such a
conclusion, or where the essential ingredients of the alleged criminal
offence are prima facie not made out.

4
2025: DHC: 7721
5
2026: DHC: 1356
CRL.REV.P. 405/2024 Page 3 of 7

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK
Signing Date:17.07.2026
13:20:37

9. Ms. Isha Khanna, learned counsel for prosecutrix, in concurrence
with the learned APP, submitted that there is/ was sufficient material on
record to frame charges under Sections 376(2)(n)/377 of the IPC,
primarily, since the petitioner had telephonically contacted prosecutrix,
persuading her to meet him in the Hotel on 09.03.2023 by promising to
divorce his wife, pursuant where to sexual relationships were made once
again. She lastly submitted that the voice recordings in the pen drive are a
matter of trial.
10. This Court has heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel
for the prosecutrix and the learned APP as also has gone through the
documents and materials on record along with the judgments cited.
11. It is not denied that after meeting through ‘Jeevansathi’ Application
the petitioner and the prosecutrix remained in contact with each other and
had physical relationship on various occasions. This, as per the
prosecutrix, was based on a ‘ false promise to marry ’. Thence, even despite
coming to know on 05.03.2023 about the petitioner having married
another girl, there were sexual/ physical relationship on 09.03.2023
between him and the prosecutrix.
12. Before proceeding further, the relevant extract from the impugned
order dated 30.11.2023, is extracted as under:-
“ 9. Perusal of the record shows that prosecutrix had
categorically levelled allegations against accused Anurag
that on 11.01.2021, he had called her at Hotel Aman
Continental, Pahar Ganj, Delhi and there he had pressurize
her to establish physical relations with him and when she
had initially refused for the same, he had promised to marry
her and on his assurance of marriage, physical relations
were established between accused and prosecutrix and
CRL.REV.P. 405/2024 Page 4 of 7

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK
Signing Date:17.07.2026
13:20:37

thereafter physical relations were establish between them,
several times. She has also alleged in her complaint that
accused had subjected to her for unnatural sex, without her
consent. Prosecutrix has substantiated her allegations
against the accused in her statement u/s. l64 Cr.PC and her
allegations are further substantiated from the hotel records
seized from hotel Aman Continental, Pahar Ganj, Delhi,
showing entry of prosecutrix with accused in the said hotel
on 11.01.2021. Further prosecutrix had explained that she
had gone to meet the accused on 09.03.2023 at Gurugram,
as accused has insisted and had stated that he would marry
her after divorcing his wife and has also filed audio
recording of the stated telephonic conversation between
accused and herself. ”

13. As apparent therefrom, the learned Trial Court has indeed
considered the materials on record, particularly the statements made under
Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. as also the chargesheet, which prima
facie evince the due application of mind therein. Strangely , the facts reveal
that though the petitioner established physical relationship with the
prosecutrix for a long time, and he never divulged anything qua his
marriage with another girl, the same, ipso facto creates a doubt in the mind
of this Court to pass any order, at this stage. In fact, the subsequent acts,
post 05.03.2023, are also matters of trial.
14. In the considered opinion of this Court, the case set up by the
petitioner calls for a full-fledged trial, for which relevant Section(s) of the
IPC have been invoked by the learned Trial Court vide the impugned
6
order. As held in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal , this Court is
required to undertake only a prima facie assessment of the materials

6
(1979) 3 SCC 4
CRL.REV.P. 405/2024 Page 5 of 7

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK
Signing Date:17.07.2026
13:20:37

placed on record and must refrain from embarking upon a meticulous
appreciation of the evidence or conducting a roving inquiry, as the same
would amount to holding a mini-trial. Consequently, where the evidence
on record is capable of giving rise to two plausible views, and the material
creates only a ‘ mere suspicion ’ rather than a ‘ grave suspicion ’ qua the
involvement of the petitioner/ accused with respect to the alleged offence,
the Court would be justified in discharging the petitioner/ accused.

15. Moreover, the present is a petition wherein this Court has only been
called upon to exercise its revisional jurisdiction, where interference is
warranted only in exceptional circumstances, whence the impugned order
suffers from manifest illegality, patent perversity, or an inherent
jurisdictional error and unless the impugned order is vitiated by defects of
the said nature, as such, as held by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Amit
7
Kapoor v. Ramesh Kumar Chandra , this Court ought not to interfere
whilst exercising its revisional powers.
16. Lastly, the judgement entitled Prosecutrix (x) (supra) cited by
learned counsel for petitioner is not applicable to the present factual
matrix as there was no marriage with a third party involved therein. In the
present proceedings, the marriage of the petitioner to a third party barring
the prosecutrix (without telling her/ behind her back: which are subject
matter of trial) are sufficient to create ‘ grave suspicion ’ in the mind of a
Court. The judgments entitled Ankit Raj (supra) and X v. State of
Maharashtra (supra) also do not aid the case of the petitioner since the
victims therein even after knowing that the accused were married had

7
(2012) 9 SCC 460
CRL.REV.P. 405/2024 Page 6 of 7

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK
Signing Date:17.07.2026
13:20:37

made sexual/ physical relations various times, making the same, a case
where relationship had gone sour.
17. As such, keeping in view of the aforesaid analysis and reasoning,
the present petition is dismissed and the charges framed against the
petitioner under Sections 376(2)(n)/377 of the IPC vide the impugned
order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the learned ASJ, (FTSC) (RC), Central
District Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in SC No.313/2023 are hereby sustained.

18. Ergo , the present petition alongwith the pending application is
dismissed.


SAURABH BANERJEE, J.
JULY 17, 2026/So
CRL.REV.P. 405/2024 Page 7 of 7

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK
Signing Date:17.07.2026
13:20:37