LI Network
Published on: 06 September 2023 at 17:15 IST
The Delhi High Court has emphasized that courts should not be employed as “marriage facilitators” in sexual offense cases, stating that the judicial system cannot be manipulated for personal agendas or to exert pressure on any party.
This assertion came as the court rejected an anticipatory bail plea from a defendant accused of raping a woman under false pretenses of marriage.
The accused had sought pre-arrest bail on the grounds that he was willing to marry the victim. The petition mentioned that the woman’s father, initially hesitant about an inter-caste marriage, had now consented to it.
However, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the evidence and documents in the case indicated that both the accused and the complainant had used the judicial system and investigative agencies to their advantage in various ways.
The court expressed, “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 grant of bail which they have been opposing for many months.”
The State opposed the plea, citing the gravity of the allegations and the accused’s failure to cooperate with the investigation, as he remained absconding.
The court noted that such complaints had become a trend, burdening the judicial system with cases that congest the court dockets. It highlighted instances where bail was granted at the request of the complainant, only for subsequent petitions for bail cancellation to be filed, alleging that the accused had not fulfilled promises of marriage or had abandoned the rape victim after marriage.
The court firmly stated, “The courts 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.”
In this particular case, the court observed that there was no indication in the trial court proceedings or previous proceedings suggesting that the parties were considering marriage or that the accused had acknowledged a consensual relationship with the alleged victim. It noted that the accused’s stance on marriage had only emerged at a later stage.
The court emphasized that such behavior amounted to exploiting the judicial system and investigative agencies for personal gain, stating that the judicial system should not be used to settle scores or coerce any party to act in a specific manner.
Considering the overall circumstances, the court deemed it inappropriate to grant anticipatory bail, suggesting that custodial interrogation might be necessary for the truth to prevail.
