The Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Prateek Jalan, has stayed trial court proceedings in a rape case, observing that overlapping allegations made by a complainant against two different men for the exact same timeframe raise prima facie doubt over whether she was acting on a promise of marriage. The High Court halted proceedings arising out of FIR No. 489/2025 registered at Police Station Pahar Ganj, Delhi, against petitioner Rohit Sehrawat under Sections 376 (rape), 313 (causing miscarriage without woman’s consent), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Rohit Sehrawat, approached the High Court seeking an interim stay of further proceedings pending before the Sessions Court as SC No. 347/2026. The FIR against the petitioner was registered on August 23, 2025. Notice in the main petition had been issued earlier on March 18, 2026, but the petitioner was compelled to seek an interim stay via CRL.M.A. 20029/2026 as the Sessions Court was actively proceeding with the matter at the stage of arguments on charge.
Arguments Presented
Senior Counsel Ms. Nandita Rao, appearing for the petitioner, contended that the criminal complaint was vitiated by malafides. She submitted a comparative chart showing that between 2024 and 2025, the same complainant had lodged four separate complaints against different accused persons making allegations of a sexual nature:
- FIR No. 98/2024 (PS Pratap Nagar, Jaipur): Alleged repeated sexual misconduct against an employer between 2019 and 2024; a closure report was filed on February 22, 2024.
- Complaint dated August 2, 2024 (PS Malviya Nagar, Jaipur): Alleged rape on false pretext of marriage against one Sagar Sharma covering the period 2018–2024 and forced abortion; resulted in a settlement agreement on October 10, 2024.
- FIR No. 34/2025 (PS Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur): Alleged rape on false pretext of marriage against one Rajvardhan Singh in 2024; a closure report was filed on August 3, 2025.
- Impugned FIR No. 489/2025 (PS Pahar Ganj, Delhi): Alleged rape on false pretext of marriage against Rohit Sehrawat covering the period 2018–2023 along with allegations under Section 313 IPC.
Ms. Rao emphasized that two complaints—against Sagar Sharma and the present petitioner—covered the exact same period (2018–2023) with identical allegations of physical relations on false promises of marriage and forced abortions. She submitted that it was inconceivable that the complainant could be misled by false promises of marriage from two different individuals during the same timeframe.
Furthermore, counsel highlighted that the complainant had previously made a similar complaint against the petitioner at Women Police Station, Rewari, which ended in a settlement on November 22, 2023. In her statement at that time, the complainant acknowledged that their relationship ended on November 6, 2022, and undertook not to communicate or file further complaints against him. Despite this, the present FIR was filed nearly two years later in August 2025.
Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Hitesh Vali accepted notice on behalf of the State, while Mr. Irfan Firdous represented the complainant.
Court’s Analysis and Precedents
Examining the legal standards, the High Court referred to Supreme Court rulings in Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra and Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., which clarified that every romantic relationship turning sour does not satisfy the statutory ingredients of rape, even if originally predicated on a prospect of marriage.
The Court further cited the Supreme Court judgment in Prithvirajan v. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police and Anr., which outlined the necessary conditions for attracting the offence of rape on the pretext of marriage:
“This Court has time and again reiterated that only because physical relations were established based on a promise to marry, it will not amount to rape. For the offence of rape to be attracted, the following conditions need to be satisfied: first, the accused promised to marry the prosecutrix solely to secure consent for sexual relations without having any intention of fulfilling said promise from the very beginning; second, that the prosecutrix gave her consent for sexual relations by being directly influenced by such false promise of marriage. [See: Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra; Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra]”
“The instant case is one of consensual relationship between the appellant and prosecutrix. Even otherwise, it does not appear from the record that the initial promise to marry allegedly made by the appellant was false to begin with. Perusal of FIR itself suggests that the alleged promise to marry could not be fulfilled by the appellant due to intervening circumstances. Consequently, the relationship ended because of which the present FIR came to be registered. Under these circumstances, letting the appellant face trial would be nothing short of an abuse of the process of the Court. This cannot be permitted.”
Evaluating the material on record, the High Court observed:
“Prima facie, where allegations of this nature are made against two persons in respect of a sexual relationship which covers the same period, it raises a doubt as to whether the complainant could have been acting on the basis of the promise of marriage made by two different individuals.”
Decision of the Court
The High Court ordered that proceedings before the Sessions Court shall remain stayed until further orders. The stay application has been directed to be listed alongside the main petition on October 5, 2026.
Case Details:
Case Title: Rohit Sehrawat v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.
Case No.: CRL.M.C. 1977/2026 & CRL.M.A. 20029/2026
Bench: Justice Prateek Jalan
Date: 13.07.2026
