Delhi HC Stays Sessions Court Proceedings in Rape Case After Complainant Found to Have Filed Four FIRs Against Different Men for Overlapping Periods

Justice Prateek Jalan found it prima facie inconceivable that one complainant was misled by two different men's marriage promises during the same 2018–2023 period, granting a stay of charge-stage proceedings in the Sessions Court.

The High Court of Delhi has stayed further proceedings, including arguments on charge, in a rape case pending before the Sessions Court, after it emerged that the same complainant had filed four separate complaints against four different men — alleging sexual relations on a false promise of marriage — covering substantially overlapping periods between 2018 and 2025. Justice Prateek Jalan, sitting singly, passed the order on 13 July 2026 in Rohit Sehrawat v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr. (CRL.M.C. 1977/2026), on a stay application filed within a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The order is interim and the matter is listed for 5 October 2026.

The FIR and the Sessions Court Proceedings

FIR No. 489/2025 was registered on 23 August 2025 at Police Station Pahar Ganj, District Central, Delhi, against the petitioner Rohit Sehrawat under Sections 376, 313, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The complainant alleged that physical relations were established on a false pretext of marriage during the period 2018–2023, and that a forced abortion was also carried out, attracting Section 313 IPC.

The case was committed to the Sessions Court and numbered SC No. 347/2026. By the time the stay application was moved, the Sessions Court had advanced the matter to the stage of arguments on charge — a stage at which framing of charges against the accused becomes imminent. It was this progression that prompted the petitioner to seek a stay from the High Court, as the main quashing petition (CRL.M.C. 1977/2026) had been pending since notice was issued on 18 March 2026.

The Pattern of Four Complaints

Senior Counsel Ms. Nandita Rao, appearing for the petitioner, placed before Justice Jalan a chart setting out all four complaints filed by the same complainant. The court reproduced the chart in its order. The details are as follows:

The first complaint, FIR No. 98/2024 dated 28 January 2024, was filed at Police Station Pratap Nagar, Jaipur City (East), Rajasthan, against one Pradeep Jain, the complainant's employer. It alleged repeated sexual misconduct over the period 2019–2024 under Sections 384 and 376(2)(n) IPC. That FIR ended in a closure report on 22 February 2024.

The second complaint was filed on 2 August 2024 before the SHO of Police Station Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, against one Sagar Sharma. It alleged rape on a false pretext of marriage during the period 2018–2024. That complaint ended in a settlement agreement filed by the complainant on 10 October 2024.

The third complaint, FIR No. 34/2025 dated 20 January 2025, was registered at Police Station Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur City (South), Rajasthan, against one Rajvardhan Singh, under Sections 318, 351(2), and 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. It alleged rape on a false pretext of marriage in the year 2024. A closure report was filed in that case on 3 August 2025.

The fourth and impugned complaint is FIR No. 489/2025, registered on 23 August 2025 at Pahar Ganj, Delhi, against the present petitioner, Rohit Sehrawat, alleging rape on a false pretext of marriage during 2018–2023.

Of the three earlier complaints, two resulted in closure reports and one in a settlement. The court recorded that this pattern had been placed on record to demonstrate that the present complaint was vitiated by malafides.

The Overlapping Allegations and Earlier Settlement

Ms. Rao drew the court's attention specifically to the concurrence between the second complaint (against Sagar Sharma) and the impugned FIR against Rohit Sehrawat. Both complaints cover the period 2018–2023, and in both, the complainant alleged that physical relations were established on a false pretext of marriage. In addition, allegations of forced abortion under Section 313 IPC appear in both FIRs.

Justice Jalan recorded that it was Ms. Rao's submission that it was inconceivable the complainant could have been misled by false promises of marriage from two entirely different individuals during the very same period. The court found this argument to raise a prima facie doubt about the complainant's conduct.

Ms. Rao additionally drew attention to an earlier complaint filed by the same complainant against the present petitioner at Rewari Women Police Station, which was resolved by way of a settlement. A statement made by the complainant on 22 November 2023 — in which she recorded that her relationship with the petitioner had ended on 6 November 2022, and undertook not to communicate with him and not to file any further complaint against him — was placed on record. The present FIR, however, was filed almost two years after that statement, on 23 August 2025.

The court also noted that the complaint against Sagar Sharma (filed at Malviya Nagar, Jaipur) referred to a physical relationship commencing after 2019 and continuing until July 2024, again overlapping with the period covered by the impugned FIR.

The Legal Framework Applied

Justice Jalan referred to two Supreme Court decisions on the ingredients of rape on the false pretext of marriage. In Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3471) and Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2528), the Supreme Court clarified that every romantic relationship that turns sour, even if originally predicated on a prospect of marriage, does not satisfy the ingredients of the offence.

The court also extracted the two-part test laid down in Prithvirajan v. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police and Anr. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 696), which synthesised the position from Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra ((2019) 9 SCC 608) and Mahesh Damu Khare. For Section 376 to be attracted in a false-promise-of-marriage case: first, the accused must have promised marriage solely to secure consent, without any intention of fulfilling the promise from the outset; and second, the prosecutrix must have given consent directly on account of that false promise.

The Prithvirajan extract reproduced in the order also observed that where the record suggests the promise to marry could not be fulfilled due to intervening circumstances, and the FIR was registered only after the relationship ended, “letting the appellant face trial would be nothing short of an abuse of the process of the Court.”

Justice Jalan applied this framework to the facts before him. Where allegations of rape on a false promise of marriage are made against two different persons for a relationship covering the same period, the court held that a prima facie doubt arises as to whether the complainant could genuinely have been acting on the basis of promises made by two different individuals simultaneously.

Outcome

By order dated 13 July 2026, Justice Prateek Jalan stayed the proceedings before the Sessions Court in SC No. 347/2026 — including arguments on charge — until further orders in CRL.M.C. 1977/2026. The stay is expressly subject to further orders. The stay application (CRL.M.A. 20029/2026) and the main petition are listed together for hearing on 5 October 2026.