Justice Kuldeep Mathur observed that in Indian society, many sexual assault cases go unreported due to social stigma and embarrassment. In this case, both complainants had been in intermittent relationships with the accused over several years, re-entering the relationship each time they were assured of marriage. The Court noted that the complainants’ delay in reporting the incidents was a result of their genuine belief that the accused would keep his promise, and not due to any ulterior motive.
The Court found that the allegations in both FIRs—which included rape under IPC Section 376(2)(n), criminal intimidation, and voluntarily causing hurt—were serious and not frivolous. The complainants alleged that the accused had no intention to marry them from the outset and obtained their consent for sexual relations through deceitful promises. In one case, the complainant attempted suicide after realizing the deception and discovered she had unknowingly signed a live-in relationship agreement prepared by the accused.
Justice Mathur emphasized that at this stage, the Court cannot minutely examine the correctness of the allegations, especially since the investigation has already collected material supporting the commission of an offence. The Court concluded that the proceedings should continue in the interest of justice.
Case Title: Arpit Naraniwal v State and batch
Counsel For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Manish Shishodiya with Advocates Deepesh Birla, Deepak Gurnani, Varun Arora, Farooq Ahmed and Ashok Kumar
Counsel For Respondent: Public Prosecutor Narendra Singh and Additional Government Advocate Ravindra Singh Bhati.
Rejecting the argument that the FIRs were frivolous, the Court stated that, at this stage, it cannot minutely examine the correctness of the allegations. The Court found that the investigating agency had collected sufficient material to warrant further investigation and concluded that the proceedings should continue in the interest of justice.
