CRL.M.C./7137/2026 of AJMER SINGH Vs THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) & ANR. on 24 September 2026

O R D E R

% 24.09.2026

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023(hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS’) seeking quashing of FIR No. 169/2025 registered at Police Station Mohan Garden under Sections 328/376/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), along with the chargesheet and all proceedings emanating therefrom, including those pending in SC No. 508/2026 before the learned Trial Court.

BRIEF FACTS:

3. As per the complaint forming the basis of the FIR, the complainant states that the complainant had been acquainted with the petitioner since 2013. The parties are stated to have commenced preparation for the Civil Services Examination together in 2014 and attended coaching classes in Mukherjee

Nagar, Delhi.

4. The complaint further alleges that in July 2015, the petitioner took the complainant to his house on the pretext of sharing study notes. It is alleged that after consuming Pepsi offered by the petitioner, she became dizzy and lost consciousness and, upon regaining consciousness after about 2-3 hours, found herself on a bed without clothes. The complainant further alleges that the petitioner threatened her to circulate her private photos on social media in case she disclosed the incident. She states that thereafter the petitioner continued to have sexual relations with her under such threats.

5. The complaint further states that the complainant became pregnant in September 2015 and alleges that the petitioner forcibly subjected her to an abortion at a hospital in Delhi, during which period he allegedly promised to marry her . It is further alleged that she became pregnant again in April 2016 and was thereafter subjected to another abortion.

6. According to the complaint, the petitioner continued to assure her of marriage and continued to have sexual relations with her from 2015 till February 2025.

7. It is further stated that on 07.03.2025, the complainant came to know through the social media account of the petitioner's sister that the petitioner had married another woman.

8. The FIR thereafter came to be registered on 16.05.2025. The investigation culminated in the filing of the chargesheet on 10.07.2025, without arrest of the petitioner, and summons were thereafter issued by the learned Trial Court on 02.07.2026. Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the first alleged incident is stated to have taken place in July 2015, the complainant admittedly continued her relationship with the petitioner for several years thereafter. It is submitted that no complaint or FIR was lodged during the intervening period and that the complainant remained silent for nearly a decade before approaching the police in May 2025.

10. Learned counsel submits that the allegations regarding the promise of marriage are also not consistent throughout. It is pointed out that, according to the petitioner, the initial complaint does not allege that a promise of marriage was made at the time of the first alleged incident, whereas the statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS/Section 164 of the CrPC refers to the petitioner having stated that he would marry the complainant after the alleged incident. It is further submitted that the complaint refers to a promise allegedly made during the complainant's treatment in 2015, whereas the statement under Section 164 CrPC does not contain the same version in the manner alleged in the complaint.

11. Learned counsel submits that there is no recovery of any incriminating article, photograph or video from the petitioner which would substantiate the allegations. It is therefore contended that the material on record does not disclose sufficient corroboration and that the allegations are liable to be examined in the context of the prolonged relationship between the parties.

12. Learned counsel further submits that the complainant was herself pursuing preparation for the Civil Services Examination and that the parties remained associated for a considerable period. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jaspal Singh Kaural v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., 2025 INSC 457, particularly the principles concerning the distinction between a false promise to marry and a subsequent breach of promise. It is submitted that the mere fact that the parties remained in a relationship for a prolonged period and that the relationship ultimately did not culminate in marriage cannot, by itself, constitute the offence of rape. Submissions on behalf of the Respondents

13. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR are presently pending before the learned Trial Court in SC No. 508/2026. The case has already proceeded beyond investigation and the chargesheet has been filed. The respondents accordingly oppose interference with the proceedings in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. Analysis and Findings:

14. This Court has considered the submissions advanced and has perused the material placed on record.

15. The jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS is undoubtedly wide, but is required to be exercised sparingly and with caution. At the stage of considering a petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings, the Court is required to examine whether the allegations, taken at their face value, disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged. The Court is not required to undertake a detailed appreciation of evidence or conduct a mini-trial.

16. The Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, while considering the scope of the jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, reiterated that the High Court should not usurp the function of the Trial Court or conduct a mini-trial where disputed questions of fact arise. The Court has to examine whether the uncontroverted allegations contained in the FIR, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The Supreme Court also reiterated the principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and, that the reliability or genuineness of allegations ordinarily cannot be examined at the stage of quashing.

17. In the present case, the contention of the petitioner essentially requires this Court to examine the credibility of the complainant, the effect of the alleged delay, the discrepancies between the complaint and the statement under Section 164 CrPC, the significance of the continuation of the relationship, and the absence of independent witnesses or recovery. These are all matters which involve appreciation and assessment of evidence.

18. It is also material that the petitioner's submission proceeds substantially on the premise that the FIR has been lodged after a period of nearly ten years from the first alleged incident. However, the complaint, as placed on record, does not restrict the allegations to a solitary incident in July 2015. It specifically alleges that the sexual relationship continued from 2015 till February 2025 and refers to continued assurances of marriage during that period.

19. The complaint further places the alleged disclosure regarding the petitioner's marriage in March 2025, following which the FIR was registered on 16.05.2025. Thus, the question as to the relevance and effect of the intervening period, including the circumstances in which the complainant continued her association with the petitioner, cannot be determined merely by treating the case as one concerning an isolated incident of 2015.

20. The petitioner's reliance upon the prolonged relationship between the parties also requires consideration in the light of the nature of allegations contained in the FIR. The complainant does not merely allege that physical relations were established on the basis of a promise of marriage which was subsequently not fulfilled. The complaint contains specific allegations that, upon consuming Pepsi offered by the petitioner, she lost consciousness, that upon regaining consciousness she found herself without clothes, that the petitioner allegedly possessed her nude photographs and videos and that he thereafter allegedly threatened her with circulation of the same and continued to have sexual relations with her. Allegations relating to the subsequent pregnancies, abortions and continued assurances of marriage are also part of the complaint.

21. Therefore, the prosecution case, at least on a reading of the complaint and the FIR at this stage, cannot be reduced to a case where the only allegation is that a consensual relationship ultimately failed on account of refusal to marry. There are allegations pertaining to the manner in which the first sexual act is alleged to have taken place, as well as allegations of subsequent coercion and threats. Whether these allegations are truthful, whether they are corroborated by the material collected during investigation; and what inference is ultimately to be drawn from the evidence, are questions which fall for consideration before the learned Trial Court.

22. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on Jaspal Singh Kaural (supra) does not alter this position. In that case, the Supreme Court considered a prosecution where the allegation was essentially that the accused had established a prolonged physical relationship with the prosecutrix on the assurance of marriage. The Court reiterated that there is a distinction between a false promise to marry and a subsequent breach of such promise. The Supreme Court observed that a false promise would involve an intention, from the very beginning, not to fulfil the promise and that the promise must have a direct nexus with the consent for the sexual relationship.

23. The factual circumstances in the present case, however, require evidence to determine the nature of the relationship and the circumstances in which the alleged sexual acts took place. The allegation concerning the initial loss of consciousness, followed by the alleged use of nude photographs and videos for threatening the complainant, is a matter which cannot be disbelieved or adjudicated upon at the stage of exercise of inherent jurisdiction merely because the parties subsequently remained associated for several years.

24. The alleged discrepancies between the complaint and the statement under Section 164 CrPC also do not, at this stage, render the prosecution case liable to be quashed. The petitioner has relied upon the differences in the narration concerning the promise of marriage and the timing thereof. Whether such differences constitute material contradictions or are matters capable of explanation can only be determined after the relevant statements are proved and the evidence is tested in accordance with law.

25. It is also relevant that the investigation has already culminated in a chargesheet and proceedings are pending before the learned Trial Court. The Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure (supra) has cautioned that criminal proceedings should not ordinarily be scuttled at the threshold where the allegations disclose a cognizable offence, and that the power of quashing is to be exercised sparingly.

26. At this stage, this Court is not called upon to express any opinion on the truthfulness of the allegations or on the ultimate guilt or innocence of the petitioner. The limited question is whether the material, if taken at face value, discloses the commission of the offences alleged and whether the present case falls within the recognised parameters warranting interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

27. On a consideration of the allegations contained in the complaint and FIR, the nature of the allegations concerning the first incident, the subsequent allegations of threats and continued sexual relations, and the fact that the investigation has resulted in filing of the chargesheet, this Court finds that the present case involves factual issues which require adjudication on evidence.

28. Consequently, no case for exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS is made out at this stage. The present petition, along with the pending applications, is accordingly dismissed.

29. Nothing contained in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the prosecution case or the defence of the petitioner. The learned Trial Court shall consider the matter independently, on the basis of the evidence led before it and in accordance with law.

30. Copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court for necessary information and compliance.

31. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 24, 2026/P