The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling, has quashed criminal proceedings for an alleged offence of rape, holding that the continuation of the case, initiated four years after the alleged incident based on a complaint lacking specific details, would amount to a “gross abuse of the process of law.” A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta allowed an appeal filed by the accused, setting aside a summoning order issued by an Allahabad magistrate and an order by the Allahabad High Court that had refused to interfere.
The court underscored the duty of courts to scrutinize frivolous or vexatious complaints intended to wreak vengeance, observing that summoning a person in such cases is a “very serious” matter that can tarnish their image.
Background of the Case
The matter originated from a private complaint lodged on August 11, 2014, by the respondent (complainant) before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad. The complaint alleged offences under Sections 323, 504, 376, 452, 377, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, for incidents alleged to have occurred sometime in 2010.
Initially filed as an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), the Magistrate, instead of ordering a police investigation, took cognizance and initiated a magisterial inquiry under Section 202 of the CrPC. Following the inquiry, the Magistrate, on August 25, 2015, issued a summons to the appellant for the offence of rape under Section 376 of the IPC.
The appellant challenged this summoning order before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by filing an application under Section 482 of the CrPC. The High Court, via its order dated September 12, 2019, dismissed the application, prompting the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The senior counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the complaint was a “gross abuse of the process of law.” He contended that the complaint was “bereft of material particulars” and contained “very vague allegations.” A central point of his argument was the unexplained delay of four years in lodging the complaint for an incident that allegedly took place in 2010. He submitted that the appellant and the complainant were in a consensual relationship and that the false allegations were levelled after they decided to part ways.
The counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh submitted that since cognizance was taken on a private complaint, the State had no role to play in the matter. The Supreme Court also noted that the complainant (respondent no. 2) had “declined to accept the notice issued by this Court.”
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court, after examining the materials on record, concluded that both the trial court and the High Court had erred. The bench observed that a plain reading of the complaint “doesn’t inspire any confidence.”
The Court heavily criticized the delay, stating, “There is no good explanation offered, why it took four years for the respondent no.2 to file a complaint.” It further noted that the complaint “fails to disclose the date of the incident including the place of the incident, etc.”
The judgment highlighted that the inclusion of the appellant’s parents as accused and the levelling of various other offences “makes the entire case doubtful.” The Court found that none of the allegations were “substantiated by any other independent evidence on record.”
Emphasizing the seriousness of issuing a summons based on a frivolous complaint, the Court stated:
“It is by now well settled that summoning any person on the basis of a frivolous or vexatious complaint is something very serious. This would tarnish the image of the person against whom false, frivolous and vexatious allegations are levelled.”
The bench cited its decision in Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P. (2023), reiterating the duty of a court to look into a complaint “with care and a little more closely” when it appears to be instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance.
The Court also drew a distinction between rape and consensual sex under the pretext of marriage, referring to its judgment in Deepak Gulati Vs. State of Haryana (2013). It observed:
“There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex and in a case where there is a promise of marriage, the Court must very carefully examine whether the accused had actually wanted to marry the victim, or had mala fide motives and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the latter falls in the ambit of cheating or deception.”
The fact that the complainant refused to accept the Court’s notice was considered an “additional ground that she was not at all serious right from day one.”
Decision of the Court
Concluding its analysis, the Supreme Court held that the High Court should have exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the proceedings. The bench unequivocally stated, “…we are of the view that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellant would be nothing but gross abuse of the process of law.”
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the impugned order of the Allahabad High Court was set aside, and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.655/2014 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate were quashed.
