Delhi High Court: Quashing ‘Absurd’ Rape FIR, Staying ‘Roving’ Investigation

In two significant but distinct orders, the Delhi High Court has reasserted its supervisory and inherent jurisdiction to curb the misuse of criminal law processes. One bench quashed a rape and sexual assault FIR against a retired Army General, citing "inherently absurd" allegations, while another stayed proceedings in a forgery case, finding a police notice constituted a "roving and fishing inquiry." These decisions underscore the judiciary's role as a gatekeeper against frivolous litigation and investigative overreach.

---

Quashing of "Inherently Absurd" Allegations in Sexual Assault Case

In a decisive ruling that highlights the judiciary's responsibility to prevent the abuse of legal machinery, Justice Amit Mahajan of the Delhi High Court quashed a rape and sexual assault case against a 70-year-old retired Indian Army officer. The Court found the allegations to be "inherently absurd" and unsupported by any credible evidence, concluding that allowing the case to proceed to trial would be a "miscarriage of justice."

The plea was filed by Lt General Inderjit Singh AVSM VSM (Retired), challenging a trial court order that had directed the Delhi Police to register an FIR against him for a litany of serious offences, including attempted rape, sexual assault, and criminal intimidation under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Allegations and Contradictory Evidence

The complainant, a neighbour of the retired officer, alleged that in 2020, Lt Gen Singh accosted her in a park adjoining their residences, trapped her, and viciously assaulted her. Her complaint detailed that he "pounced on her, pressed her breast, threw her on the ground, tore her clothes, inserted his fingers in her private part and tried to commit rape upon her," before her mother intervened.

However, the High Court, exercising its inherent jurisdiction, scrutinized the material collected during the preliminary police inquiry. This scrutiny revealed significant inconsistencies that cast serious doubt on the veracity of the complaint. Justice Mahajan pointedly noted several critical pieces of evidence that contradicted the complainant's narrative:

1. Lack of Medical Evidence: The Medico-Legal Certificate (MLC) of the complainant recorded no external injuries, a finding inconsistent with the violent struggle described.
2. Contradictory Video Evidence: Videos submitted by the complainant herself failed to show any injuries. Furthermore, her clothes appeared to be in a "normal condition," directly refuting the allegation that they were torn during the assault.
3. Inherent Improbability: The Court found the scenario itself to be highly improbable. Justice Mahajan observed, "It appears not only improbable but also preposterous for an old man of seventy years of age to have physically assaulted Respondent No.2 in such a manner, torn her clothes and to have inserted his finger in her private parts, in the presence of so many persons including his family members."

Judicial Duty to Prevent Abuse of Process

The judgment serves as a powerful reminder of the court's duty to act as a bulwark against malicious prosecution. Justice Mahajan emphasized that while allegations of sexual assault are serious, the court cannot be a passive observer when faced with patently frivolous or vexatious complaints.

“This Court owes a duty to look into the complaint with care and a little more closely in case it finds that the proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or are instituted with the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance,” the Court stated. It further elaborated that this responsibility involves "balancing equities and limiting itself to an assessment of ascertaining whether the allegations are frivolous or improbable without conducting a mini enquiry into the veracity of the allegations.”

The High Court also faulted the Magistrate for ordering the FIR registration without giving due consideration to a report from the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), which had raised serious doubts about the complainant's case. While acknowledging that deferring FIR registration for a preliminary inquiry may not always be appropriate, the Court held that "once such an enquiry is done, this Court cannot remain blind to the overarching material found in favour of the petitioner."

Citing the "absurd nature of the allegations which are not supported by a shadow of credible evidence," the Court concluded that the continuation of proceedings would be an "abuse of process of law." Subjecting the retired officer to the "tribulations of trial" in such circumstances would be a clear "miscarriage of justice," warranting judicial interference.

---

Stay on "Roving" Investigation in Fake Degree Racket Case

In a separate matter, Justice Arun Monga provided interim relief to GLOCAL University by staying proceedings in a cheating and forgery FIR and a connected police notice issued under the new criminal laws. The Court, prima facie, found that the notice demanding extensive data about the university's students and staff amounted to a "roving and fishing inquiry."

The case stems from an FIR registered by the Delhi Police's Cyber Crime unit concerning an alleged cash-for-degree scam in the Delhi-NCR region. Subsequently, the police issued a notice to GLOCAL University under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking a wide array of information, including personal and professional records of officials, employees, and thousands of students.

Dual FIRs and Jurisdictional Overlap

A key argument advanced by the university, represented by Advocate Aadil Singh Boparai, was the existence of a prior FIR on the same issue. The university itself had lodged a complaint with the Saharanpur police in January, alleging that unknown persons were issuing forged degrees in its name. Following police inaction, a Saharanpur Magistrate Court ordered the registration of an FIR, which was lodged in September.

The Delhi High Court noted this overlap, observing that the Delhi FIR, registered in June, appeared to be based on the "same/similar allegations" as the one in Saharanpur. "Prima facie, it appears from the record that based on the same set of allegations... two FIRs on same cause are currently registered," Justice Monga recorded in his order.

Protecting Privacy and Preventing Overreach

The university argued that the notice under Section 94 BNSS was a misuse of investigative powers. Section 94 empowers police to summon documents necessary for an investigation, but the university contended that the police demand was excessively broad and not directly relevant to the allegations. It was argued that complying would infringe upon the fundamental right to privacy of students and staff and risk data breaches that could harm their careers.

The Court agreed with this preliminary assessment. Justice Monga observed, "Bare reading of the same reflects that roving inquires have been made from university, some of which have no concern with the allegation of fabrication of the degrees."

In light of the overlapping FIRs and the prima facie overbroad nature of the investigative notice, the Court issued a notice to the State and suspended further proceedings in the Delhi FIR until the next hearing on December 2.

Implications for Criminal Investigations

This order is significant as one of the early judicial interpretations of investigative powers under the new BNSS. It signals that courts will continue to apply established principles against "roving and fishing" inquiries to the new procedural code. The decision reinforces that investigative agencies cannot use their powers to demand voluminous, unrelated, or confidential information without demonstrating a clear and specific nexus to the alleged crime. It also highlights the judiciary's role in resolving jurisdictional conflicts arising from multiple FIRs concerning the same incident.

Together, these two orders from the Delhi High Court powerfully illustrate the judiciary's vital function in safeguarding individual liberties and ensuring that the criminal justice system is not wielded as a tool for harassment or vexatious litigation.