High Court provides binding clarification: Quashing of proceedings under Sections 376 and 376(2)(n) IPC is warranted when the complainant’s versions are self-contradictory, unsupported by medical and forensic evidence, and motivated by ulterior purposes. Reaffirms and applies Supreme Court guidelines—future quashment petitions in similar scenarios have authoritative precedent to cite; existing case law affirmed and further clarified.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRMP/243/2023 of Wakeel Ahmed Vs State of Chhattisgarh |
| CNR | CGHC010034442023 |
| Date of Registration | 02-02-2023 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HON’BLE Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Division Bench: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh; persuasive for other High Courts and the Supreme Court |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing Supreme Court precedent; application of recent Supreme Court principles |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law—Quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC |
| Questions of Law | Whether criminal proceedings for rape based on alleged sex on false promise of marriage can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC where allegations are inconsistent, unsupported, and motivated by ulterior purposes. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The ratio is that proceedings based on allegations of rape on a false promise of marriage should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC if evidence reveals contradictions, lack of corroboration, forensic and medical negation, and mala fide intent behind the complaint. The decision follows Supreme Court pronouncements (including Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani, Naim Ahmed, Deepak Gulati) that call for courts to scrutinize complaints for reliability and motive, and to look beyond the complaint’s bare averments in cases suggesting abuse of process. Courts must prevent criminal law from becoming an instrument of personal vendetta. In this case, complainant’s shifting narratives, absence of supporting evidence, unexplained delay, and ulterior motives rendered continuation of the prosecution an abuse of process. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
Applied the test of whether allegations are inherently improbable, uncorroborated, and suggested to be motivated by personal vendetta; relied on the Supreme Court’s step-wise analysis for quashing; distinguished between consensual sex and sex by deception; stressed on the importance of judicial scrutiny of the entire circumstances, including documentary, medical, and forensic evidence. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner, employed in Qatar and having an unblemished background, was accused by Respondent No.2 (a distant relative) of rape on the false promise of marriage, allegedly occurring at various places including Bhilai and Malegaon. The complaint, however, was made after significant delay, and her various statements (complaint, legal notices, FIR, bail application, etc.) contained mutually contradictory versions. Medical and FSL reports negated the occurrence of recent intercourse; there was evidence of demands for money and property. Petitioner asserted the FIR was maliciously filed as a counterblast to other complaints, and no credible evidence supported the prosecution case. Investigation culminated in a charge-sheet; the prosecution resisted quashing, relying on the FIR’s contents and urging that disputed facts should go to trial. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts across India; the Supreme Court |
| Overrules | None indicated |
| Distinguishes | Differentiates from cases where allegations are consistent, supported by evidence, and do not display manifest ulterior motive |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates, with fresh application to facts, that Section 482 CrPC powers should be used to quash rape prosecutions if the accusations are inconsistent, uncorroborated, and evidently motivated by vengeance or blackmail.
- Emphasizes the need for courts to “read between the lines” and scrutinize surrounding circumstances, not only the FIR’s text, to prevent abuse of process.
- Applies and clarifies the Supreme Court tests on rape allegations involving promises of marriage: focus on contemporaneous intent, consistency of complainant’s allegations, and supporting medical/forensic evidence.
- Lawyers seeking quashment in similar cases should highlight contradictions, absence of timely complaint or medical evidence, and suggestive background circumstances (e.g., demands for money/property).
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court first set out the settled legal position on quashing: Section 482 CrPC must be used to prevent abuse of process when prosecution is clearly baseless, malicious, or vexatious.
- Supreme Court cases (including Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani, Naim Ahmed, Deepak Gulati, Mohammad Wajid, and Rajiv Thapar) require close scrutiny when there are allegations of rape based on a false promise of marriage, particularly if the complainant’s accounts are inconsistent or unsupported.
- The test involves examining whether the evidence is of “sterling” quality, whether the accused’s material suffices to refute the complaint, and whether it is uncontradicted or persuasively uncontradictable.
- On facts, the Court found multiple discrepancies—complainant’s versions changed repeatedly; there was an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR; medical and FSL evidence did not corroborate the rape allegation; and demands for large sums/property existed against the petitioner.
- Applying Supreme Court guidelines, the Bench determined the case to be a manifest abuse of process—designed for vengeance and not supported by adequate evidence.
- The prosecution was thus quashed, and the order is rooted in binding precedent, providing a clear pathway for future quashment petitions where material circumstances are similar.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Allegations were self-contradictory and inconsistent across various statements (complaint, legal notice, FIR, evidence).
- Medical and forensic reports negate the allegation; no proof of sexual intercourse.
- No reference to physical intimacy in chats or initial complaints.
- FIR was delayed and lodged as a counterblast to earlier family disputes and complaints.
- Respondent attempted blackmail and made monetary/property demands; motives are vengeful and not genuine.
- No jurisdiction for Bhilai incident; attempt to create territorial jurisdiction is fraudulent.
- Petitioner has unblemished background and is facing harassment.
- Relied on multiple Supreme Court judgments (Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani, Naim Ahmed, Deepak Gulati, etc.).
Respondent State
- Allegations in FIR and statements demonstrate commission of cognizable offence; police followed proper procedure.
- Sufficient material before court to proceed to trial; issues raised pertain to appreciation of evidence, best left for trial.
- Section 482 CrPC relief is exceptional; not applicable when alternate remedies (e.g., discharge, revision) are available.
- Relied on Supreme Court’s caution against conducting a mini-trial at the quashing stage (Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh).
Respondent No.2
(Through counsel) No instructions or reply from the complainant; only representation on record.
Factual Background
The petitioner, a professional residing in Qatar, allegedly committed rape against Respondent No.2, a distant relative’s niece, on the false promise of marriage at multiple locations—first in Bhilai in 2014–2015, then in Malegaon and Pune in 2021. Disputes arose between families regarding company management, after which Respondent No.2 allegedly misused company credentials and demanded ransom. The complaint initially lacked any allegation of rape, introducing the Bhilai incident only in the FIR much later. Medical and forensic tests did not support the prosecution’s allegations. The FIR was, according to the petitioner, a retaliatory action to ongoing legal disputes.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 482 CrPC: Inherent powers of High Court to quash proceedings prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice; its exercise is to be guided by Supreme Court precedents, and not limited to a textual reading of the complaint.
- Sections 376, 376(2)(n) IPC: Judicial scrutiny must determine whether the essential elements—intercourse under false promise—are sustained by the evidence; distinction between consensual sex and deception must be carefully maintained.
- Section 90 IPC: The Court referenced Supreme Court interpretations regarding “consent” and “misconception of fact” to differentiate consensual relationships from sexual assault.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate dissenting or concurring opinions were delivered; both judges concurred in the reasoning and outcome.
Procedural Innovations
- Restated the principle that once a party is represented by counsel before the court, the matter need not be delayed indefinitely for lack of reply.
- Applied recent Supreme Court methodology for quashing—systematic, multi-step scrutiny of materials beyond the FIR.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing Supreme Court law is affirmed and clarified.