New Delhi (IANS) | The Delhi High Court on Wednesday stayed a sessions court’s order directing the police to register an FIR against Vir Singh for forcing a woman to live with him and having sex with him in a fake marriage. I went. Veer Singh is the son of Analjit Singh, founder-chairman of Max Group.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani stayed the order after Singh moved the High Court. The court has also issued notice on the petition and the matter will be heard next on May 29.
On March 27, Saket Court’s Additional Sessions Judge Arul Verma booked the woman under IPC sections 376, 493, 496, 417, 341, 342 and 354C for living with him (Veer Singh) and having sex with him without her consent. It was directed to register an FIR under.
The woman has alleged that Singh raped her because he entered into sexual intercourse with her on the belief that he was legally married to her and that he was her husband.
The present case revolves around the allegation that Singh induced the revisionist under a false belief that she was legally married to him and this is based on the fact that Singh had sexual intercourse with her. Did it
At the outset, the court noted that the judgments relied upon by Singh’s counsel pertained to cases where sexual relations were consummated on the pretext of false promise of marriage. The court said that this is a case where prima facie allegations of sexual intercourse without the consent of the woman are made out.
It is alleged that Singh and his family members organized a wedding ceremony in Taiwan on 4 December 2018 and performed post-wedding rituals such as ‘griha pravesh’ (when a newly married bride enters her new home with her husband). enters) and the ‘Dhol’ ceremony was played.
Significantly, a child was born out of this relationship and the revisionist’s case is that in May 2020, Singh first brought her up and the child moved to a rented house and later said that he did not want to live with her anymore.
The woman, represented by advocates Shivani Luthra Lohia and Nitin Saluja, has claimed that Singh has also sought custody of the child and is denying the fact of marriage.
It is alleged that after a mock ceremony was organized by Singh and his family members, the woman was betrothed without her consent. It is alleged that Singh installed CCTV cameras and baby monitors in the bedroom and lobby and recorded her movements without her consent and knowledge.
The court noted that perusal of the record shows that a ceremony was held between the parties (revisionist and respondent Singh) in Taiwan, which was followed by post-marriage ceremonies.
The court said, perusal of the photographs and videos on record shows that prima facie some of the essential rituals of marriage like applying sindoor on the forehead, garlanding each other, applying henna and griha pravesh were performed.
Verma said that such ceremonies were bound to constrain the revisionist to believe that a valid marriage had been entered into, and on that basis she agreed to live and have sexual intercourse with Singh.
Singh’s sister also congratulated him on the wedding via Facebook, while his father welcomed him into the family by sending him a voice note.
However, Singh’s lawyer advertised some emails exchanged between the parties, stating that Singh had no intention of marrying the revisionist and both had agreed to live in a relationship without consummation. .
To this, the court said that these submissions cannot be accepted as exchange of derogatory personal messages between the parties does not clearly establish the claim of the respondent and the messages were exchanged prior to the date of marriage. Was.
In the present case it is alleged by the revisionist that Singh has committed the offense of voyeurism against him and he has relied upon his letter dated 20 February 2021 to the SHO of Defense Colony Police Station.
Veer and the staff members also recorded my videos when I was changing clothes or when I was breastfeeding my son, the woman alleged.
The allegation, which prima facie crosses all limits of decency and makes a woman feel insecure in her own home, must be probed by the police, the court said.
To prove the incidents of stalking or voyeurism, the CCTV footage has to be obtained, the court said. Even the statement of the victim should be recorded under section 164 of CrPC and medical examination should be done to ascertain the truth of the matter.
The court noted that the allegations at this juncture paint a picture of a helpless woman who was left in the lurch. Such humiliation to the dignity of a woman cannot be swept under the carpet as it will add to her infamy.
–IANS
