Supreme Court quashes false rape case, lays down four-step test to quash frivolous criminal complaints

The Supreme Court recently quashed a criminal case involving allegations of rape on the false promise of marriage after finding that continuation of criminal proceedings would entail a gross abuse of the legal process [Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr].

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta added that it is well-settled law that summoning a person on the basis of a frivolous or vexatious complaint is a very serious matter.

The Court explained that such actions tarnish the image of the person against whom false, frivolous and vexatious allegations are made.

The Court also laid down a four-step test to be followed by High Courts when they are urged to quash cases in the exercise of their jurisdiction under Section 482 (inherent powers to do complete justice) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/ CrPC (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita).

The four-step test suggested by the top court in this regard involve examining the following aspects:

1. Whether the material relied upon by the accused while making a prayer to quash the case is sound, reasonable and indubitable, that is, of sterling and impeccable quality?

2. Whether the material relied upon by the accused would negate the assertions contained in the criminal charges, being sufficient to reject and overrule the factual basis of the complaint, such that a reasonable person would dismiss the accusations as false?

3. Whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution or the complainant or is of such a nature that it cannot be justifiably refuted?

4. Whether continuing the trial would amount to an abuse of the process of the court and would not serve the ends of justice?

"If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal – proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the CrPC," the Court added.

The Court went on to observe that such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would also save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial especially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.

The Court made these observations while setting aside an Allahabad High Court order that had refused to quash criminal proceedings against a man who was accused of raping a woman on the false pretext of marriage.

The woman lodged a private complaint in August 2014 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad. The complainant, a Scheduled Caste student, alleged that in 2010, the accused man befriended her during coaching classes, sexually assaulted her on the false pretext of marriage, recorded objectionable videos to blackmail her, continued to exploit her sexually and later forced her to undergo an abortion when she became pregnant in 2011.

She also accused his family of caste-based abuse when she pressed for marriage.

The criminal case registered in the matter cited the offences under Sections 323 (hurt), 504 (insult), 376 (rape), 452 (house trespass after preparation for hurt), 377 (unnatural offences), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), besides charges under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

A magistrate took cognizance of the matter directly, conducted an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC, and summoned appellant for trial.

His plea to quash the summoning order under Section 482, CrPC was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court in September 2019.

This led him to move the Supreme Court, contending that the complaint against him was frivolous, vague and amounted to a gross abuse of process.

The top court found the entire case to be doubtful, observing that key details such as the date and place of the alleged crimes were missing from the complaint. Various allegations made in the complaint were not backed by independent evidence, it added.

It further pointed out that the complainant had declined to accept notice served by the Supreme Court in the matter. This led the Court to believe that the complainant was not serious about pursuing her complaint.

"The fact that the complainant thought fit not to even accept the notice issued by this Court is one additional ground that she was not at all serious right from day one i.e. since the time she decided to lodge the complaint," the order said.

It added that in cases involving claims of rape on a false promise of marriage, courts should adopt a careful approach.

"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 Supreme Court explained.

The Court further took critical note that the accused man's parents were also dragged as accused into the case.

The Court concluded that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellant would amount to gross abuse of the process of law.

Accordingly, it quashed the criminal proceedings pending before the trial court.

Senior Advocate Rahul Kaushik and advocates Bibek Tripathi, Y Lokesh, Sudhakar Tiwari, Ajay Kumar Shrivastav, Mohit Kumar Gupta and Akshat Srivastava appeared for the accused.

Advocates Adarsh Upadhyay, Pooja Singh, Pallavi Kumari and Shashank Pachauri appeared for respondents.

[Read Order]