A Delhi court files an FIR against the son of a business mogul for rape, adultery, and "sham marriage."
The court made this observation in its order: "Such an affront to the dignity of a woman cannot be brushed under the carpet because it will compound her ignominy..."
Ankush Pandey
After a woman claiming to be Veer Singh's wife and the mother of his child moved to a Delhi court for relief, Veer Singh, an entrepreneur and the son of Analjit Singh, the founder of Max Group, will now have to deal with an investigation into allegations of fake marriage and rape.
The Additional Sessions Judge Arul Varma's court has instructed the Delhi Police to file an FIR and investigate claims made under Sections 375(4), 493, and 496 of the Indian Penal Code. Inducing a woman to consent to sexual activity by falsely claiming the man is her husband is one of these crimes. The court has additionally called for examination under s 354(c) for voyeurism - connecting with the affirmed videography of the lady while inside the common home.
The order has been issued in response to claims made by a woman that Veer Singh coerced her into living with him after a "sham marriage" in Taiwan in 2018. The "marriage ceremony" allegedly involved Singh's family, according to the plea, which was filed by Advocate Shivani Luthra. This led Singh to believe that she was married. Additionally, the couple had a child.
The woman had claimed, according to the verdict, that Veer Singh told her to leave his house in 2022 and demanded custody of the child.
The Meetings court gave the request in an updated supplication documented by the lady, as the Judge court had declined to coordinate a record an FIR on her objection.
The woman claimed to be "married" despite the fact that Singh's attorneys argued that the couple had remained in a consensual sexual relationship as live-in partners.
"Perusal of the photographs and videos produced on record reveals prima facie certain essential ceremonies of a de rigueur marriage was performed viz applying vermillion on the forehead, garlanding each other, applying mehndi and grip Pravesh," the court of ASJ Varma stated in its Monday order. "In order to invoke Section 493 IPC, it is not necessary that the sham marriage ceremony would have the requisites of a de rigueur marriage. Such a ceremony is bound to induce the revisionist to believe that a lawful marriage was entered into, and on this basis, she agreed to cohabit and have sexual intercourse." It will suffice if the woman is made to believe that she was legally married to the man, whether by putting vermillion on his head, walking around the chosen deity, giving each other garlands, or something else. In addition, according to Section 496 of the Indian Penal Code, it is alleged that the respondent went through the marriage ceremony knowing that he was not legally married. As a result, "respondent Veer Singh is prima facie made out qua the respondent in the present case," the court stated.
In addition, the woman claimed that she had been placed under video surveillance without her knowledge and that she had been restrained inside the Defence Colony residence that she shared with Singh. "It cannot be gained that the home, especially the bedroom and bathroom provide sanctuary to a woman," the court stated in its order.
"In a private setting, the expectation of "not being observed" is nothing more than an extension of the fundamental right to privacy. A woman who is not in a relationship with the offender is entitled to this right. The court has determined that "nothing in the Section can be construed to grant any exemption to a husband, family member, or a live-in partner... "
The concerned SHO has been given the order by the Sessions court to file an FIR and begin the investigation. In order to "ensure compliance," a copy of the order will also be sent to the DCP (South).
"The complainant is without a doubt unable to obtain the respondents' phones for messages and WhatsApp chats, as well as CCTV footage, and send it to FSL for verification. In order to prove stalking or voyeurism, CCTV footage must be obtained. In order to discover the truth, a medical examination and even the victim's statement must be recorded in accordance with Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court stated in its order that "other facets for which police investigation is therefore imperative" include recording the statement of the Buddhist priest/Rinpoche who conducted the ceremony, the individuals who attended the alleged wedding, grih Pravesh, dhol, and other ceremonies, the trader who printed the alleged wedding reception card, the venues where the ceremonies took place, the entries therein, and payments made.
"The allegations that have been made at this point paint a picture of a helpless woman who is stuck in a rut. According to the allegations, the respondent falsely induced the revisionist to believe that they were legally married when they were not, had sexual relations, and had a child on the basis of this deception, and then told the revisionist to pack her bags and left her alone one day. If this is the case, the investigating agencies would be obligated to legally address her complaints. Also, ignoring the respondent's alleged behavior above would be like giving licentious men permission to break the law and abuse a woman's autonomy without being caught. The court stated in its order that "such an affront to the dignity of a woman cannot be brushed under the carpet for it will compound her ignominy..."
