Delhi HC dismisses man’s plea to quash rape case, says he’s victim blaming

While refusing to quash the FIR, the bench said a woman’s decision to enter a relationship based on a man’s promise to marry cannot be labelled as “obsession” when he later withdraws his commitment.

The Delhi high court has condemned a man’s attempt to quash a rape case by claiming that the woman was “obsessed” with him and had unilaterally desired marriage. The court asserted that this perspective is inherently misogynistic, as it unfairly shifts the burden onto the victim while allowing the accused to evade all accountability.

Representational image.

While refusing to quash the FIR, a bench of justice Swarana Kanta Sharma—whose verdict was delivered on March 20 and released later—said a woman’s decision to enter a relationship based on a man’s promise to marry cannot be labelled as “obsession” when he later withdraws his commitment.

“Such an argument not only lacks legal standing but also reflects a misogynistic perspective that seeks to impose an unreasonable burden on the victim while absolving the petitioner of accountability for his own assurances and conduct,” justice Sharma said.

The case originated from an FIR filed in 2021 by a woman accusing a man under Section 376 (rape). In her complaint, the woman alleged that the man initiated physical relations with her under the pretext of marriage, only to later renege on his promise—even after meeting her family on several occasions and assuring them of his intention to marry her.

In his petition to the high court, the man claimed that the victim was fully aware of the potential obstacles to their marriage, such as financial constraints and family opposition due to their age difference. He further asserted that the woman was obsessed with him and unilaterally sought marriage.

The Delhi Police opposed the petition, asserting that the allegations against the man were both serious and grave, and that the material on record prima facie demonstrated that he induced the victim into a relationship by making false promises.

In her nine-page order, the court rejected the man’s submissions, adding, “Further, the submission that a woman must assume additional responsibility and foresee marriage-related difficulties solely because she is elder to her partner is based on a patriarchal and legally flawed premise.”

Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, emphasising on the man’s explicit assurance of marriage and the victim’s decision to engage in a physical relationship based on that legitimate expectation. “Given the prima facie material on record and the gravity of the allegations, this court finds no justification for quashing the FIR at this stage,” she said.