Delhi High Court Stayed Trial Court Order Directing Registration of FIR Against Group Founder’s Son In Alleged Rape Case

The Delhi High Court in the case Veer Singh v. State observed and has stayed the order of trial court wherein directing the Delhi Police for registering an FIR against Veer Singh, the son of the founder of Max Group Analjit Singh, wherein the woman is allegedly raped on the false pretext of marrying her.
The bench headed by Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani in the case observed and has issued notice in a plea filed by Singh’s.

However, the Additional Sessions Judge Arul Varma of Saket Courts in the case observed and on March 27 the court has directed the police to register FIR within a week against Veer Singh. The Judge observed that the acts of putting vermillion on head and for garlanding each other are sufficient to induce the belief of the lawful marriage.

It being the case of complainant that she was induced by Singh to cohabit with him and for establishing the sexual relations after performing a “sham marriage ceremony.” It has also been alleged that the rape has been committed by Singh upon her and she entered into sexual relations with Singh which being on the belief that she was lawfully married to him.

It has also been alleged before the court that Singh and his family members organized the marriage ceremony of them in December 2018 in Taiwan, wherein including the post wedding ceremonies like grih pravesh and dhol ceremony. Therefore, the child was born from the relationship.

It has also been alleged by her that that not only Singh deceived her, but he also obstructed her movements and has observed her without her consent. Before the court, it has also been alleged that Singh placed CCTVs and baby monitors in the bedrooms and the lobby.

The complainant in the case seeks registration of FIR under section 341, section 342, section 344, section 354C, section 354D, section 420, section 506 and section 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 reading with section 81 of Juvenile Justice, 2015.
Therefore, the trial court observed in an impugned order that it being a case where prima facie there are allegations of commission of sexual intercourse without the consent of the complainant.

The court stated that the court cannot brushed the affront to dignity of a woman under the carpet for it will compound her ignominy. Thus, the same is likely to be fall under Section 375 and Section 493 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 were enacted. Further, the court stated that it would be expedient in the interest of justice to investigate the cognizable offences wherein alleged by the revisionist.

Latest news

Related news