The Supreme Court of India recently quashed a First Information Report (FIR) and a subsequent chargesheet filed against a man for rape on the pretext of marriage, concluding that the criminal proceedings were likely an “afterthought and a vehicle for vengeance.” A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh overturned a Madhya Pradesh High Court order, holding that the FIR was maliciously instituted after the accused had initiated administrative action against the complainant that could have led to her dismissal from employment.
The Court exercised its inherent powers, noting that the timing and circumstances surrounding the filing of the FIR strongly suggested an ulterior motive.
Background of the Case
The case involves Surendra Khawse, the appellant-accused, who worked as an Assistant Revenue Inspector at the Suhagi Municipal Corporation, and the complainant (Respondent No. 2), a Computer Operator at the same workplace. According to the judgment, the two were colleagues for five years, during which they became friendly, and the relationship eventually progressed to physical intimacy. The complainant was previously married and has a son from that wedlock.
The relationship soured, leading to the current legal proceedings. The complainant alleged that when the appellant proposed taking their friendship further, she informed him of her marital status and her son. She claimed he understood the implications and promised they would eventually marry.
The FIR alleged that on March 15, 2023, the appellant called her to his residence and forced intimate relations with her, reassuring her of marriage when she resisted. This situation allegedly continued until April 10, 2023. A few days later, when she inquired about their marriage, the appellant allegedly refused and told her to marry someone else. This refusal led the complainant to file the FIR for rape on the pretext of a false promise of marriage under Sections 376 and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code.
Chronology of Complaints and Court’s Observations
Crucially, the Supreme Court noted that the appellant had initiated legal and administrative processes against the complainant long before she filed the FIR.
- April 24, 2023: The appellant filed a complaint under Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, alleging that the complainant was threatening to kill herself and had come to his residence, hurled abuses, and consumed rat poison.
- July 5, 2023: He lodged a complaint with the Municipal Commissioner, Jabalpur, detailing alleged harassment and threats of false implication by the complainant.
- July 6, 2023: As a consequence of the appellant’s complaint, the Municipal Corporation issued a show-cause notice to the complainant, asking her to rectify her behaviour and submit a clarification within 24 hours, failing which she would be “relieved of employment.”
The FIR that is the subject of this appeal was filed by the complainant only after these events had transpired. The appellant subsequently moved the High Court of Madhya Pradesh to quash the FIR, but the petition was dismissed on January 27, 2025, with the observation that the falsity of the promise of marriage was a matter of evidence for the trial court to decide.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court’s reasoning. The bench pointed out the significant delay and the timing of the FIR, stating, “the fact that the subject FIR was only lodged after the issuance of show-cause notice, which obviously has large real-world implications insofar as the complainant is concerned, leaves open a gaping possibility that the same was lodged as an afterthought and was a vehicle for vengeance for the impending consequences described above.”
The Court invoked the principles laid down in its landmark judgment in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), which enumerates categories of cases where inherent powers can be used to quash proceedings. The bench found the present case fell under the seventh category:
“(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
Further reinforcing its reasoning, the Court cited Mohd. Wajid v. State of U.P. (2023), which held that in cases of potentially frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the court has a duty to look beyond the averments in the FIR. The judgment quoted:
“The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation…”
Decision
Concluding that the criminal proceedings were instituted with an ulterior motive, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal. “In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the FIR and the chargesheet against the Appellant-accused ought to be quashed,” the bench ordered, setting aside the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
