The Delhi High Court quashed a 2018 rape FIR, ruling that a woman’s “blemished character” cannot be used to imply consent, even if she took money to accompany a man. The Court stressed that weaponising a victim’s past against her is impermissible.
Woman’s Past And Blemished Character: The Delhi High Court made a strong observation that the character of a victim, no matter how blemished, cannot be weaponised against her to imply consent.
The Court clarified that:
“Even a willing companion who accompanies a client in lieu of some consideration can be the victim of rape.”
Justice Amit Mahajan delivered this judgment on November 3, 2025, while hearing a petition filed by Parag Prakash Rudrangi seeking to quash an FIR registered under Sections 376 and 328 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Fatehpur Beri Police Station, New Delhi.
Background of the Case
According to the complaint, the woman (Respondent No. 2) met the petitioner in May 2018 while working at Sahara Mall. They exchanged numbers, and in June 2018, the petitioner allegedly visited her home and “forcibly established physical relations with her.”
The complainant said she remained silent as the man told her he wished to marry her. He allegedly continued to have sexual relations with her on the pretext of marriage, took over her salary, and borrowed large sums of money — around ₹8 to ₹10 lakhs. When she refused to pay more, he allegedly threatened to make her photos and videos viral.
In her statement under Section 164 CrPC, the complainant admitted that she met the petitioner at a club, where he offered her ₹500 to talk to him since she wasn’t getting her salary. Later, she agreed to spend more time with him for ₹1000, and the petitioner bought her clothes. She claimed he forced her to drink a cold beverage that made her dizzy, after which he raped her. She also accused him of unnatural sex and claimed he kept relations with her under the false promise of marriage.
Arguments by the Parties
The petitioner’s counsel, Dr. Vijay Kumar Shukla, argued that the FIR was false and motivated, calling it a “honey trap.” He said the petitioner was a married man with two children and that the complainant was aware of this. Hence, the allegation of a “false promise of marriage” was implausible.
The petitioner also pointed out that the complainant had filed rape cases earlier, which ended in acquittal, showing her tendency to make false allegations. It was further argued that her statement itself revealed that she used to give company to men for money and had previously been arrested under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
On the other hand, the complainant’s lawyer argued that the case disclosed cognizable offences and that her past conduct should not be used to question her credibility.
He said:
“Scandalous allegations made against the complainant to question her credibility are of no relevance.”
Court’s Observations
Justice Amit Mahajan began by noting that while courts can quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of law, such power must be used cautiously — especially in cases involving sexual assault.
The Court acknowledged a growing trend where:
“With the passage of time, there has been an increasing tendency of weaponizing law to wreak vengeance after souring of relationships, which has a chilling effect on genuine survivors.”
It stressed that false cases tarnish reputations, and courts must balance both sides.
Referring to Supreme Court precedents, Justice Mahajan reiterated that the power to quash an FIR must only be used where the allegations appear inherently improbable or malicious.
In this case, the judge noted that although the complainant claimed rape occurred in June 2018, she filed the complaint only in October 2018, after the relationship soured. The parties had a five-month-long relationship, and even as per her own statement, they continued to meet regularly until October 2018.
The judge cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra (2024), which held that long-term physical relationships cannot later be termed rape merely because the relationship soured.
The Supreme Court had observed:
“The longer the duration of the physical relationship between the partners without protest and insistence by the female partner for marriage would be indicative of a consensual relationship rather than a relationship based on false promise of marriage.”
“Such a prolonged continuation of physical relationship without demurral or remonstration by the female partner, in effect takes out the sting of criminal culpability and neutralises it.”
Character and Consent
Addressing the petitioner’s attempt to discredit the woman’s background, Justice Mahajan made a strong statement:
“The character of a victim, no matter how blemished, cannot be weaponised against her to imply consent. Even a willing companion who accompanies a client in lieu of some consideration can be the victim of rape. Merely because Respondent No.2 was willing to accompany the petitioner for some money, the same does not indicate that she was also willing to establish sexual relations with him.”
However, the Court also noted serious inconsistencies in the woman’s statements — such as differing timelines, missing hospital details, and lack of witnesses — which weakened the prosecution’s case.
The Court remarked that it was “improbable that Respondent No.2 was ignorant of the marital status of the petitioner,” as she had claimed to know his family well. The absence of corroborating evidence and contradictory statements made it clear that continuing the case would serve no purpose.
Court’s Decision
Finding the allegations inconsistent and unsupported by material evidence, Justice Mahajan ruled that continuing the proceedings after five years would amount to abuse of process. The Court stated:
“Subjecting the petitioner to suffer the tribulations of trial in such circumstances would be miscarriage of justice.”
Accordingly, the Delhi High Court quashed FIR No. 460/2018 and all related proceedings.
Conclusion
This judgment reaffirms two crucial legal principles:
- A woman’s past, reputation, or profession cannot be used to infer consent in a sexual offence case.
- At the same time, false and inconsistent allegations made after a failed relationship cannot be allowed to misuse the criminal process.
Justice Amit Mahajan’s balanced approach underscores the judiciary’s responsibility to protect both — genuine survivors and falsely accused individuals — ensuring that justice remains rooted in evidence, not emotion.
Table: Laws & Sections Mentioned in the Case
| Law / Statute | Section(s) | Provision / Subject Matter | Relevance in Case |
| Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) | § 376 | Punishment for Rape | Core offence alleged against petitioner — physical relations on false promise of marriage. |
| § 328 | Causing hurt by poison etc. to commit an offence | Complainant alleged drink was spiked before rape. | |
| § 377 | Unnatural Offences (anal/oral sex) | Added later in supplementary chargesheet for alleged unnatural sex. | |
| § 506 | Criminal Intimidation | Alleged threat to make photos and videos viral. | |
| Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) | § 164 | Recording of statement or confession before Magistrate | Victim’s statement used as primary basis for chargesheet. |
| § 482 | Inherent powers of High Court to prevent abuse of process of law | Power invoked by petitioner to seek quashing of FIR. | |
| Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 | — | Law against prostitution and trafficking | Petitioner referred to prior case against complainant under this Act to question credibility — rejected by Court. |
| Indian Constitution / Judicial Doctrine | — | Article 226 / Inherent Jurisdiction & Bhajan Lal Guidelines | Bench applied principles to decide whether continuing the case was abuse of process. |
Case Summary
| Heading | Details |
| Case Title | Parag Prakash Rudrangi vs State & Anr. |
| Court | High Court of Delhi at New Delhi |
| Case Numbers | CRL.M.C. 483/2020, CRL.M.A. 2006/2020, CRL.M.A. 25583/2023, CRL.M.A. 19498/2025 & CRL.M.A. 19561/2025 |
| Date of Judgment | 03 November 2025 |
| Coram / Bench | Hon’ble Mr Justice Amit Mahajan |
| Petitioner | Parag Prakash Rudrangi |
| Respondents | State (NCT of Delhi)Complainant (in person) |
| Petitioner’s Counsel | Dr. Vijay Kumar Shukla, Ms. Nupur Shukla & Mr. Anirudh Gulati |
| Respondents’ Counsel | Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam (APP for State); SI Suruchi (PS Fatehpur Beri); Mr. Rishab Kaushik (Advocate for Complainant) with Complainant in person |
| Neutral Citation | Not specified (2025 Delhi HC – 03 Nov 2025) |
| Relied-on Precedents | • State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) • Nirmal Premkumar v. State (2024 SCC OnLine SC 260) • Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P. (2023 SCC OnLine SC 951) • Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3471) |
| Final Order | FIR No. 460/2018 registered under Sections 376/328 IPC at PS Fatehpur Beri and all consequential proceedings quashed. |
Key Takeaways
- Consent ≠ Character: A woman’s profession, past, or monetary dealings cannot imply consent for sexual acts.
- False Promise of Marriage: Long relationships or mutual adult cohabitation generally indicate consent, not deception.
- Abuse of Law: Courts can quash rape cases when allegations are inconsistent, unsupported, or used for vengeance.
- Evidence over Emotion: Justice Amit Mahajan stressed the need for corroboration and rational scrutiny before trial.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.