New Delhi (Agency): The Delhi High Court has firmly stated that the courts should not be utilized as “marriage facilitators” in cases involving sexual offences. The court emphasized that the judicial system should not be employed for settling personal scores or coercing parties to act in a particular manner. This stance was expressed while dismissing an anticipatory bail petition filed by an accused in a case involving the alleged rape of a woman under the false pretext of marriage.
The accused had sought pre-arrest bail on the grounds that he was willing to marry the victim. The petition claimed that the woman’s father, who was initially opposed to the inter-caste marriage, had now agreed to accept the marriage proposal. However, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that the facts and documents presented indicated that both the accused and the complainant were attempting to manipulate the judicial system and investigative agencies for their personal advantage.
Justice Sharma emphasized, “The courts of law cannot be used as a forum for the purpose of facilitating marriages and be used as marriage facilitators by first lodging an FIR alleging that the accused, after establishing physical relations, had refused to get married to the victim and later appear before the Court for grant of bail which they have been opposing for many months.”
The court’s observations came in response to the State’s opposition to the plea, which cited the serious nature of the allegations and the accused’s failure to cooperate with the investigation, resulting in his absconding.
Justice Sharma further highlighted that the judicial system and investigative agencies invest time and resources into cases, and it has become a concerning trend to burden the courts with such complaints that clog the legal process. The court firmly stated that the courts cannot be used as a means of pressuring the accused into marriage or as a method for obtaining bail by manipulating situations.
In this specific case, the court noted that there was no indication in the trial court proceedings or prior proceedings to suggest that the parties were considering marriage or that the accused had admitted to a consensual relationship with the alleged victim. The court emphasized that taking contradictory stances for personal advantage undermines the judicial system’s integrity and effectiveness.
The court concluded that the case did not merit anticipatory bail, as the accused’s conduct and shifting positions demonstrated a lack of consistency and truthfulness. The court emphasized that custodial interrogation may be necessary to establish the truth in the case.
The Delhi High Court’s stance reaffirms the importance of upholding the judicial system’s integrity and ensuring that it is not exploited for personal motives or manipulation.
