‘No mini-trial’: Delhi High Court refuses to quash FIR against man accused of attempting to push wife into flesh trade

Delhi High Court Latest News: The Delhi High Court recently rejected a plea seeking to quash the First Information Report (FIR) filed in 2021 against a man, while observing that his wife had levelled extremely serious allegations, including an attempt to push her into the flesh trade.

Justice Girish Kathpalia was on February 9 hearing the plea of the man who was also accused of sexual assault, unnatural sex, and cruelty.

Justice Girish Kathpalia heard the petition on February 9 and noted the allegations against the man.

“The detailed statement of the complainant…levels extremely serious allegations, including an effort to somehow push the complainant de facto into the flesh trade,” the court observed.

Allegations of dowry harassment, cruelty

• Another complaint filed on July 27, 2021, also has specific allegations of cruelty, dowry harassment, and criminal breach of trust against the accused.
• The argument submitted by the counsel for the petitioners – that the statement of the complainant is false – is yet to be tested through trial.
• The court cannot conduct a mini-trial at the stage of the proceedings.
• Presently, there are various allegations mentioned in the FIR, and the complainant‘s statement recorded has to be considered.
• The allegations are making a prima facie case for the offences mentioned by the complainant.

‘Two separate FIRs’

• Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Sauraj Yadav argued that the FIR was based on complete falsehood, contending that the original complaint did not contain allegations of rape or unnatural sex, which were later added through the complainant’s statement.
• It was further argued that two separate FIRs were registered on the same set of facts at two different police stations, and that the petitioner had earlier sought quashing of the other FIR.
• Yadav submitted that proceedings arising out of the earlier FIR had been stayed by the present court through an order passed in January 2026, and therefore, the present FIR was also liable to be quashed.
• It was contended that since the initial complaint of July 2021 did not allege rape or unnatural sex, the proceedings arising out of the present FIR were unsustainable.
• On the other hand, Assistant Public Prosecutor Sanjeev Sabharwal opposed the petition, taking the court through the detailed statement of the survivor recorded before the magistrate, and urged that the allegations warranted a full-fledged trial.

On marital rape, unnatural sex

In a completely different case, the Chhattisgarh High Court last year acquitted a man convicted of rape and unnatural sexual offence, extending the marital rape exception to Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that penalises unnatural sexual offences.