New Delhi [India], March 29 : The Delhi High Court on Wednesday stayed the trial court order of registering an FIR against Veer Singh, son of business tycoon and founder of Max group Analjit Singh, in connection with an alleged rape case.
The Saket court had recently directed Delhi police to register an FIR within a week in an alleged case of rape on the pretext of marriage. The order was challenged before the Delhi HC.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambh stayed the order and issued notice on the plea challenging it. The matter has been listed on May 29, for further hearing.
Delhi's Saket Court's Addition Sessions Judge (ASG) on March 27, passed the direction for registration of the FIR.
The Sessions Court had noted that the sexual relations were prima facie established based on the pretext of marriage. The court had observed that acts of putting vermillion on the head and garlanding each other are sufficient to induce the belief of lawful marriage.
It was submitted by the woman that she was induced to believe that they were lawfully married in 2018, and to cohabit with him and to establish sexual relations. They also had a child out of the relationship.
The woman alleged that the marriage was orgsed by Singh and his family members in Taiwan in 2018. She also alleged that her movements were obstructed and were followed without her consent. It was further alleged that the CCTV and baby monitors were placed in the bathrooms.
The complainant had sought direction for the registration of FIR. While passing the direction the trial court observed that to ignore the narrated alleged conduct of the accused would be akin to giving licence to 'licentious men' to break the law and exploit the autonomy of a woman with brazen impunity.
The trial court also observed that it was a case where prima facie there are allegations of the commission of sexual intercourse without the consent of the complainant.
It further noted that sexual relations were prima facie established based on the misconception of lawful marriage.
As per the allegations, the respondent disingenuously induced the revisionist to believe that they were lawfully married when they were not so married, then on the basis of this deceit had sexual relations and begotten a child, and then one fine day told the revisionist to pack her bags and left her stranded, the trial court noted.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor