The Delhi High Court has refused to quash a rape case on the basis of marriage and said the "trend" of filing and retracting complaints have to be curbed as bogus cases cause grave injustice to actual victims.

Justice Girish Kathpalia, in a judgement passed on April 29, observed if the complaint in the present case turned out to be false, quashing it in the present stage (chargesheet filed by police) would encourage the abuse of process of criminal justice machinery.

The judge also said if the complaint was indeed true, instead of "extending premium to the accused by pushing the helpless survivor into his matrimony", the state would have to ensure her a dignified life by providing her food, shelter and clothing.

The case related to the allegations of a woman who said the petitioner raped, sodomised and blackmailed her over objectionable pictures by the accused, who was her neighbour.

She claimed the man's brother-in-law, the other petitioner in the case, also sexually abused her.

The men sought quashing of the FIR against them arguing the main petitioner married the complainant.

"I am not satisfied that the impugned FIR and/or the consequent proceedings can presently be treated as abuse of process of the court in any manner or that quashing the same would secure the ends of justice," the court said.

Even if the woman turned hostile in the witness box during the trial, her testimonies would be tested by the prosecution and appropriate consequences would follow for lodging a false complaint, it added.

"If the complaint lodged by the prosecutrix (woman) which led to the registration of FIR and the consequent proceedings is not truthful, quashing the same would tantamount to encouraging the abuse of process of criminal justice machinery. The trend gradually setting in across the society to lodge false complaints with impunity and thereafter retract, needs to be checked," the court said.

The court said every false complaint contributed to not just an unnecessary load on the overflowing dockets but also gave an impression that even genuine complaints were false, thereby, causing grave injustice to actual survivors of rape.

The court observed the present case was not an ordinary one in which a love affair had gone awry or where the survivor was induced into sexual relations on a false promise of marriage.

The truth couldn't be arrived at without testing the allegations in trial, it noted.

It came on record that the parties married roughly 10 days prior to the filing of the chargesheet with the court wondering if it was justified to push the survivor into the "matrimonial fold of her tormentor".