{"id":1349,"date":"2025-11-11T16:27:59","date_gmt":"2025-11-11T10:57:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/?p=1349"},"modified":"2025-11-11T16:20:57","modified_gmt":"2025-11-11T10:50:57","slug":"woman-past-and-blemished-character","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/woman-past-and-blemished-character\/","title":{"rendered":"Delhi High Court: Woman\u2019s Past And Blemished Character Cannot Be Used To Prove Consent In Rape Case. Even A Willing Companion Can Be A Victim"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Delhi High Court quashed a 2018 rape FIR, ruling that a woman\u2019s \u201cblemished character\u201d cannot be used to imply consent, even if she took money to accompany a man. The Court stressed that weaponising a victim\u2019s past against her is impermissible.<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Woman\u2019s Past And Blemished Character<\/em>:<\/strong> The Delhi High Court<\/strong> made a strong observation that the character of a victim, no matter how blemished, cannot be weaponised against her to imply consent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court clarified that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cEven a willing companion who accompanies a client in lieu of some consideration can be the victim of rape.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Justice Amit Mahajan<\/strong> delivered this judgment on November 3, 2025, while hearing a petition filed by Parag Prakash Rudrangi<\/em> seeking to quash an FIR registered under Sections 376 and 328 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Fatehpur Beri Police Station, New Delhi.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Background of the Case<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u201cforcibly established physical relations with her.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u2014 around \u20b98 to \u20b910 lakhs. When she refused to pay more, he allegedly threatened to make her photos and videos viral.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In her statement under Section 164 CrPC, the complainant admitted that she met the petitioner at a club, where he offered her \u20b9500 to talk to him since she wasn\u2019t getting her salary. Later, she agreed to spend more time with him for \u20b91000, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Arguments by the Parties<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The petitioner\u2019s counsel, Dr. Vijay Kumar Shukla, argued that the FIR was false and motivated, calling it a \u201choney trap.\u201d<\/strong> He said the petitioner was a married man with two children and that the complainant was aware of this. Hence, the allegation of a \u201cfalse promise of marriage\u201d<\/em><\/strong> was implausible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the other hand, the complainant\u2019s lawyer argued that the case disclosed cognizable offences and that her past conduct should not be used to question her credibility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He said:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cScandalous allegations made against the complainant to question her credibility are of no relevance.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Court\u2019s Observations<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Justice Amit Mahajan began by noting that while courts can quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of law, such power must be used cautiously \u2014 especially in cases involving sexual assault.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court acknowledged a growing trend where:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cWith 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.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

It stressed that false cases tarnish reputations<\/strong>, and courts must balance both sides.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The judge cited the Supreme Court\u2019s ruling in Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra<\/em> (2024), which held that long-term physical relationships cannot later be termed rape merely because the relationship soured.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court had observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe 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.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cSuch 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.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Character and Consent<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Addressing the petitioner\u2019s attempt to discredit the woman\u2019s background, Justice Mahajan made a strong statement:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe 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.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

However, the Court also noted serious inconsistencies in the woman\u2019s statements \u2014 such as differing timelines, missing hospital details, and lack of witnesses \u2014 which weakened the prosecution\u2019s case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court remarked that it was \u201cimprobable that Respondent No.2 was ignorant of the marital status of the petitioner,\u201d<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court\u2019s Decision<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cSubjecting the petitioner to suffer the tribulations of trial in such circumstances would be miscarriage of justice.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Accordingly, the Delhi High Court quashed FIR No. 460\/2018 and all related proceedings<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This judgment reaffirms two crucial legal principles:<\/p>\n\n\n\n