Delhi High Court – Orders
Rohit Sehrawat vs State Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 13 July, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~79
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 1977/2026
ROHIT SEHRAWAT .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Nandita Rao, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Amit Rana, Mr. Firooz Khan,
Mr. Deepak Sehrawat, Mr. Aman,
Mr. Akash, Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP with SI
Sahil.
Mr. Irfan Firdous, Ms. Nandini
Bindoria, Mr. Vansh Choudhary,
Ms. Manmeet Kaur, Ms. Sukriti
Bajaj, Mr. Shahreyar Khan,
Advocates for R2/complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 13.07.2026
CRL.M.A. 20029/2026 (for stay)
1. By way of this application, the applicant – petitioner seeks stay of
further proceedings arising out of FIR No. 489/2025 dated 23.08.2025,
registered at Police Station Pahar Ganj, District Central, Delhi, under
Sections 376/313/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC“], pending
before the Sessions Court [SC No. 347/2026], until final disposal of the
captioned petition.
2. Issue notice. Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public
CRL.M.C. 1977/2026 Page 1 of 5
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/07/2026 at 21:51:54
Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Irfan Firdous,
learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2 –
complainant.
3. Notice was issued in the petition vide order dated 18.03.2026. The
present application has been filed as the Sessions Court is proceeding
with the matter, and the proceedings are now at the stage of arguments on
charge.
4. I have heard Ms. Nandita Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Vali, and Mr. Firdous.
5. The principal argument of Ms. Rao is that the complaint is vitiated
by malafides. She submits that the same complainant has filed four
complaints against different accused persons during the period between
2024 to 2025, making various allegations of a sexual nature. Ms. Rao has
handed over a chart, which shows the nature of the four complaints and
the status of each of them. The same is reproduced below:
S.No. Details Accused Allegation Status
1. FIR No. 98/2024 Pradeep Jain Repeated sexual Closure Report
dated 28.01.2024 u/s (Employer). misconduct filed on
384, 376 (2) (n) IPC, during the 22.02.2024
PS: Pratap Nagar, period 2019-
Jaipur City (East), 2024. @ Pg. 39.
Rajasthan. Annx B @
32, Translated @ 37.
2. Complaint to S.H.O, Sagar Rape on false Settlement
P.S. Malviya Nagar, Sharma pretext of Agreement filed
Jaipur, Rajasthan marriage during by the
dated 02.08.2024. the period complainant on
Annx D @ 54, 2018-2024. @ 10.10.2024. Annx
Translated @ 58. Pg. 58 E @ 61,
Translated @ 64.
CRL.M.C. 1977/2026 Page 2 of 5
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/07/2026 at 21:51:54
3. FIR No. 34/2025 Rajvardhan Rape on false Closure Report
dated 20.01.2025 u/s Singh pretext of filed on
318, 351(2), 64(2)(m) marriage in the 03.08.2025.
BNS, PS: Mahesh year 2024. @
Nagar, Jaipur City Pg. 50
(South), Rajasthan.
Annx C @ 42,
Translated @ 48.
4. Impugned FIR Rohit Rape on false -
FIR No. 489/2025 Sehrawat pretext of
dated 23.08.2025 u/s marriage during
376, 313, 506 IPC, PS: the period
Pahar Ganj, Central 2018-2023. @
Delhi. Annx A @ 22, Pg. 26.
Translated @ 25.
6. It is evident from the above chart that out of the three complaints,
other than the present one, two have resulted in closure reports, and the
third in settlement.
7. For the present, Ms. Rao draws my attention to the allegations in
the present FIR and in the complaint dated 02.08.2024 filed in Jaipur
against one Sagar Sharma. She submits that, in both these cases, which
cover the same period of 2018-2023, the complainant alleged that
physical relations were established on the false pretext of marriage. Ms.
Rao submits that it is inconceivable that the complainant would be misled
by false promises of marriage from two different individuals during the
same period. She has also drawn my attention to the fact that allegations
of forced abortion under Section 313 of the IPC, have been made in both
these cases.
8. Ms. Rao also submits that the complainant had earlier made a
similar complaint against the present petitioner at Rewari, Women Police
Station, which resulted in a settlement. She draws my attention to a
CRL.M.C. 1977/2026 Page 3 of 5
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/07/2026 at 21:51:54
statement made by the complainant on 22.11.2023, in which it is stated
that her relationship with the petitioner ended on 06.11.2022. It appears
from the statement that the complainant undertook to break her
relationship with the petitioner, not to communicate with him, and not to
file any complaint against him. The present complaint was, however,
filed almost two years later on 23.08.2025.
9. The complaint filed by the same complainant against Sagar Sharma
before Police Station Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, has also been placed on
record, which also refers to the same period from 2018. The allegation is
that the complainant entered into a physical relationship on the false
pretext of marriage, sometime after 2019, which carried on until July
2024.
10. In Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra1 and Samadhan v.
State of Maharashtra and Anr.2, the Supreme Court has clarified that
every romantic relationship that turns sour, even if it was originally
predicated on a prospect of marriage, does not satisfy the ingredients of
the aforesaid offence. Further, in Prithvirajan v. The State Rep. by the
Inspector of Police and Anr.3, the Court has explained the ingredients of
the offences of rape on the false pretext of marriage, as follows:
“6. 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 by1
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3471.
2
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2528.
3
2025 SCC OnLine SC 696.
CRL.M.C. 1977/2026 Page 4 of 5
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/07/2026 at 21:51:54
such false promise of marriage. [See : Pramod Suryabhan
Pawar v. State of Maharashtra4; Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of
Maharashtra]”
7. 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
5
of the Court. This cannot be permitted.”
11. 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.
12. Accordingly, for the present, the proceedings before the Sessions
Court will remain stayed, subject to further orders in the captioned
petition.
13. List this application, alongwith the captioned petition, on the date
fixed, i.e. 05.10.2026.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
JULY 13, 2026
tg/MK/
4
(2019) 9 SCC 608.
5
Emphasis supplied.
CRL.M.C. 1977/2026 Page 5 of 5
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/07/2026 at 21:51:54
