The lawsuit claims that the woman planned to steal an Audi A6, five pairs of designer eyeglasses for ₹1,50,000, and three luxury watches worth over ₹13,00,000 with the help of other people.

The first information report (FIR) against a lady for allegedly stealing ₹25,00,000 and several pricey items from a man she was dating, including watches, eyeglasses, and an Audi automobile, was denied by the Delhi High Court recently.

The claims in the current case differed from those in a prior lawsuit that the guy had brought against the woman, according to Judge Neena Bansal Krishna.

The Court made it clear that filing a formal complaint does not imply that the person charged is guilty of the crime; rather, it is done to investigate claims.

Judge Bansal stated that there was no justification for the FIR to be quashed.

"In case, the Investigating Officer finds that there are no merits in the allegations or that these allegations have already been examined in the earlier FIR and found to be baseless, there is nothing which prevents him from submitting the Final Report, in terms of his investigation."

The woman was appearing in court to apply to have the false charge against her from her ex-partner in 2022 revoked.

Sections 379 (stealing), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery), 468 (forgery for cheating), and 471 (using a forged document) of the Indian Penal Code were among the charges mentioned in the FIR.

The couple allegedly got together in 2015 when she was an assistant manager at a bank, according to the FIR. After that, the woman pretended to be a divorcee and a single mother of a small child in order to begin a connection with him.

According to the man, she also presented her husband to him as her brother and another person as her father. In the end, she decided to move in with him, and on February 15, 2022, she completed an affidavit of marriage to formally enter into their union.

The woman and the other co-accused, according to the man's complaint, planned to take three expensive watches worth over ₹13,00,000, five pairs of branded eyeglasses for ₹1,50,000, and his Audi A6.

Furthermore, if he didn't comply with their requests, the woman and the other accused threatened to give his blank checks to other people so they could harass him.

But the woman claimed that the FIR was a retaliation for a previous rape accusation she had made against the man. The claims made in the new FIR, according to her lawyer, are baseless, unfounded, and intended just to bother her.

Additionally, it was emphasized that the information in the current FIR was identical to that in the previous one, which had already been looked into and produced a closure report.

The Court stated at the outset that although there were some overlapping charges, there were more accusations, different dates, and different transactions in the second FIR.

It was not possible to revoke the second FIR because the accusations were different. Thus, the Court denied the woman's petition and let the investigation to proceed.