Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-004213-004213 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 8809/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Criminal law (inherent power to quash; abuse of process) |
| Questions of Law | Whether inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) permit quashing an FIR lodged with mala fide intention and after inordinate delay in a rape-by-promise-of-marriage allegation. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Supreme Court held that the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS include quashing criminal proceedings manifestly instituted with mala fide intent to prevent abuse of process. The court noted a four-month delay in lodging the FIR, preceded by the accused’s administrative complaints and show-cause notice, indicating possible vengeance. Applying State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Mohd. Wajid v. State of U.P., it concluded that the proceedings were vexatious and quashed both FIR and chargesheet. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The court emphasized that courts must scrutinize FIRs filed with alleged mala fide motives and apply Bhajan Lal criteria, notably malicious institution for vengeance. Citing Mohd. Wajid, it held that the court may look beyond averments to surrounding circumstances and investigation materials. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The appellant and complainant, both municipal employees, had a five-year consensual relationship that soured. The complainant alleged rape on promise of marriage on 15 March 2023. She lodged an FIR under Sections 376 and 376(2)(n) IPC on 7 August 2023—four months later and after the appellant issued a show-cause notice threatening her employment. The appellant filed for quashing under Section 482 CrPC; the High Court dismissed the petition. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts considering inherent-power quashing petitions |
| Overrules | High Court of Madhya Pradesh order dated 27 January 2025 refusing quashing |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that an inordinate delay in lodging a rape FIR, especially following administrative complaints, can signal mala fide intent and justify quashing under Section 482 CrPC.
- Emphasizes the duty of courts to examine the overall context, including pre-FIR administrative steps and materials gathered, rather than relying solely on FIR averments.
- Clarifies that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) are broad enough to prevent abuse of the criminal-justice process in cases of malicious prosecution.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court invoked inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS to prevent abuse of process.
- It applied Bhajan Lal criteria, focusing on proceedings instituted with mala fide motive or vengeance.
- The timing of the FIR—lodged four months after the incident and following show-cause notices—suggested an ulterior motive.
- Citing Mohd. Wajid, the Court held that it must look beyond FIR averments to surrounding circumstances and investigation materials.
- Concluded that the FIR and chargesheet were manifestly vexatious and malicious, warranting quashing.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Accused):
- Four-month delay in filing the FIR after the alleged incident and only after administrative complaints.
- The complainant’s actions post-show-cause notice indicate mala fide vengeance.
- Continuing prosecution would abuse court process.
Respondent (State):
- Quashing at this stage would be premature; merits must be examined in trial.
Respondent (Complainant):
- Alleged rape on promise of marriage is a non-compoundable offence requiring full trial.
Factual Background
The appellant, an Assistant Revenue Inspector, and the complainant, a Computer Operator at Suhagi Municipal Corporation, had a five-year consensual relationship. On 15 March 2023 the complainant alleged the appellant forced sexual intercourse under a promise of marriage. She filed an FIR under Sections 376 and 376(2)(n) IPC on 7 August 2023—four months later and after the appellant issued a show-cause notice threatening her job. The appellant’s petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR was dismissed by the High Court.
Statutory Analysis
The Court examined Section 528 of the BNSS, which mirrors Section 482 CrPC’s inherent-power provision to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice. It interpreted these provisions to permit quashing proceedings manifestly malicious or instituted with ulterior motives.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate dissent or concurrence; both justices concurred in the reasoning and order.
Procedural Innovations
- Endorsed consideration of administrative representations and show-cause notices when assessing quashing under inherent jurisdiction.
- Reinforced that courts may use investigation-stage materials and overall record circumstances in quashing petitions.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed