The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by a man named Anurag, who wanted the rape and unnatural sex charges against him dropped. Justice Saurabh Banerjee ruled that the matter needs to go through a complete trial, since the facts on record raise more than just a mild doubt about his conduct.
Background of the Case
The case goes back to October 2020, when the petitioner and the woman met through the matrimonial app Jeevansathi. According to the complaint, their friendship grew, and the man travelled from Haridwar to Delhi to meet her and talk about marriage.
Things took a turn on 11 January 2021, when the woman alleged that the petitioner called her to a hotel in Paharganj and pressured her into a physical relationship, promising to marry her. She claimed this pattern continued at other hotels too, and that on some occasions, he forced unnatural sexual acts on her without her consent.
The woman said she found out in March 2023 that the man had already married someone else. That's when she filed the FIR under Sections 376 and 377 of the IPC at Paharganj police station. The trial court framed charges against him in November 2023, which he challenged before the High Court.
Arguments in Court
The petitioner's lawyer, Prince Arora, argued that the relationship had lasted three years, so it couldn't be assumed that every sexual encounter was non-consensual. He also pointed out that hotel records showed the woman had submitted her own Aadhaar card at check-in, which he said contradicted her version of simply being "called" to the hotel.
A key argument raised was that the woman met the petitioner again on 9 March 2023, even after learning about his marriage four days earlier. The defence called this inconsistent with her claims. Questions were also raised about a pen drive containing an alleged audio recording, which surfaced only during bail proceedings without any forensic verification.
The State's counsel, along with the complainant's lawyer Isha Khanna, opposed the plea, arguing that the trial court had rightly assessed the material on record, including statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC.
Court's Observations
Justice Banerjee noted that the trial court had indeed applied its mind while examining the case papers, statements, and the chargesheet. The judge observed that the petitioner never disclosed his marriage to the woman while continuing the relationship, and said this fact alone was enough to raise doubts at this stage.
The Court referred to earlier precedents to underline that under revisional jurisdiction, interference is warranted only when an order is clearly illegal or perverse - not merely because another view is possible. As the bench put it, the material must show only a "mere suspicion" for a discharge to be justified, whereas here it pointed to something more.
The judge also distinguished the case laws cited by the defence, noting that in those earlier judgments, there was no concealed marriage to a third party involved, unlike in this case.
Decision
The High Court dismissed the plea, holding that the charges framed against the petitioner under Sections 376(2)(n) and 377 of the IPC stand sustained.
The order came on 17 July 2026.
Case Details
Case Title: Anurag vs. State
Case Number: CRL.REV.P. 405/2024, CRL.M.A. 9250/2024
Judge: Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Decision Date: July 17, 2026
