In Jaspal Singh Kaural v/s The State of NCT of Delhi., the Supreme Court has overturned a Delhi High Court order and upheld the discharge of an appellant accused of rape (Section 376 IPC) and criminal intimidation (Section 506 IPC). The case of Jaspal SIngh Kaural Vs The State of NCT of Delhi., originated from an FIR filed by a woman alleging that the appellant had established a physical relationship with her based on a promise to marry and care for her children.

The complainant stated she had known the appellant before their respective marriages, and their relationship rekindled in 2016 after their marriages became troubled. She alleged that in 2017, the appellant, then living in Canada, met her in India and had sexual relations with her in his brother's residence, promising to marry her after divorcing his first wife. She further claimed that the appellant pressured her to divorce her husband in 2019 with the assurance of marriage, but in 2021, he refused and threatened her children. An FIR was subsequently registered when the appellant failed to appear for counselling.

During the investigation, the appellant admitted to the physical relationship and paying for a mangalsutra with his initials. A charge-sheet was filed against him. However, the Additional Sessions Judge discharged the appellant, observing that the prosecutrix's consent was informed and not based on any misconception of fact.

The High Court reversed this order, finding prima facie material to frame charges. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court.

The appellant's counsel argued that the relationship was consensual and lacked coercion, undue influence, or a false assurance of marriage. He emphasized that the complainant was aware of the consequences of her actions, especially since the relationship began in 2016 while both were married. He contended that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of the law.

The prosecutrix argued that she engaged in the physical relationship solely due to the appellant's promise to marry and care for her children. She claimed he also assured her family and ex-husband of this, leading her to divorce her husband. She asserted that the appellant's conduct amounted to dishonest inducement, making the sexual relationship rape.

The Supreme Court, relying on its previous judgment in Naim Ahmed Vs State (NCT) of Delhi, reiterated that not every physical relationship following a promise to marry constitutes rape. Rape is established only if the promise was made with the initial intention of not fulfilling it, solely to obtain consent for sexual relations, and if this false promise directly influenced the prosecutrix's consent.

The Court highlighted the following established facts from the FIR and charge-sheet:

• The physical relationship appeared consensual from the beginning. There was no clear evidence of dishonest inducement or incitement by the appellant.
• There was no material to establish criminal intimidation. The appellant's actions, such as buying a mangalsutra with his initials, suggested an intention to marry. A subsequent breakdown of the relationship does not automatically imply a false promise from the outset.
• The prosecutrix's own admission of engaging in the relationship while married and later divorcing to continue it made it difficult to believe she acted solely on a false promise. A prolonged five-year relationship suggested the absence of force or deceit and indicated a conscious decision by the prosecutrix.

The Supreme Court concluded that the Sessions Court had sufficient material to discharge the appellant under Section 227 CrPC, as a mini-trial is not permissible at the stage of framing charges. The High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, undertook an overly exhaustive analysis and failed to recognize that the Sessions Court's findings were based on the presented material. The scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited to instances of gross error, non-compliance with law, absence of evidence, ignoring material evidence, or arbitrary exercise of discretion, which was not the case here.

Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and upheld the Sessions Court's order discharging the appellant. The criminal proceedings against the appellant were terminated.

Section 227., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  

Section 376., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 506., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860