Delhi HC Stays Trial Court’s Decision Directing Filing Of FIR In Rape Case Against Max Group Founder’s Son

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday stayed the trial court’s order directing the Delhi Police to file an FIR against Max Group Founder Analjit Singh’s son Veer Singh for allegedly raping a woman under the false pretence of marrying her.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani issued a notification on Singh’s petition and scheduled a hearing for further consideration on May 29.

On March 27, Additional Sessions Judge Arul Varma of Saket Court ordered the police to register an FIR against Veer Singh within a week.

According to the complainant, Singh induced her to cohabit with him and engage in sexual intercourse following a “sham marriage ceremony.” It was claimed that Singh raped her and that she had sexual intercourse with him while believing she was legally married to him.

It was also claimed that Singh and his family members organized their wedding celebration in Taiwan in December 2018, including post-wedding ceremonies such as grih pravesh and dhol ceremony. A child was also born from the relationship.

She also claimed that Singh not only deceived her, but also obstructed her movements and watched her without her permission. Singh was also accused of installing CCTVs and baby monitors in the bedrooms and the lobby.

As a result, the complainant requested the filing of an FIR under sections 341, 342, 344, 354C, 354D, 420, 506, and 120B of the IPC, as well as section 81 of the Juvenile Justice Act of 2015.

In the impugned decision, the trial court stated that it was a case where there were prima facie allegations of sexual intercourse without the complainant’s consent.

It had stated that ignoring Singh’s alleged behaviour would be akin to giving “licentious men” a license to violate the law and exploit the autonomy of a woman with brazen impunity.

“Such an affront to a woman’s dignity cannot be swept under the carpet because it will compound her ignominy. Perhaps it was for situations like these that Sections 375 and 493 of the IPC were enacted. To give teeth to these provisions, robust investigation is a sine qua non. It would be expedient in the interest of justice to examine the cognizable offences alleged by the revisionist,” it stated.