1. FIR registered under Sections 376-D, 418, and 506 IPC alleging rape on the false pretext of marriage and cheating. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1333
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT AND NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
Manisha Meena – Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan and anr. Etc – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 693-694 of 2025 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 4002-4003 of 2022)
Decided on : 12-02-2025
Important Points
High Courts, while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, should generally rely on the FIR's contents to determine if a prima facie offence is made out. Relying on external evidence at the preliminary stage is premature and generally not advised.
Subject
Criminal Law - Rape and Sexual Offences
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376-D, 418, 506 - FIR concerning allegations of rape under false pretext of marriage - Investigating Agency initially found prima facie case, later resiled - High Court quashed proceedings invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. - Appellant claimed relationship and false promise of marriage, main accused denied - Court restored investigation against main accused and upheld relief for co-accused. (Paras 2, 4, 11, 12)
(B) Exercise of Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - High Court should not resolve factual issues at preliminary stage; Must see if FIR constitutes a prima facie case - Premature opinion formed by the High Court leads to potential injustice. (Paras 7, 9)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a victim, lodged an FIR against the main accused, claiming she was duped on the pretext of marriage and raped. She provided a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., reiterating her allegations. The respondents sought quashing of proceedings.
Findings of Court:
The investigation against the main accused is restored and High Court's order quashing proceedings against one respondent upheld; the remaining accused's status is remanded for further consideration.
Issues: Whether the High Court appropriately exercised its powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, and whether the accusations against all respondents warranted continuation of proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court noted that while quashing proceedings, the High Court must avoid engaging in factual disputes and should rely solely on FIR content when assessing if a prima facie case exists, emphasizing that premature conclusions can lead to injustice.
Result: Appeals allowed in part; investigation against the main accused restored, proceedings against one respondent upheld.
(B) Exercise of Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - High Court should not resolve factual issues at preliminary stage; Must see if FIR constitutes a prima facie case - Premature opinion formed by the High Court leads to potential injustice. (Paras 7, 9)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a victim, lodged an FIR against the main accused, claiming she was duped on the pretext of marriage and raped. She provided a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., reiterating her allegations. The respondents sought quashing of proceedings.
Findings of Court:
The investigation against the main accused is restored and High Court's order quashing proceedings against one respondent upheld; the remaining accused's status is remanded for further consideration.
Issues: Whether the High Court appropriately exercised its powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, and whether the accusations against all respondents warranted continuation of proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court noted that while quashing proceedings, the High Court must avoid engaging in factual disputes and should rely solely on FIR content when assessing if a prima facie case exists, emphasizing that premature conclusions can lead to injustice.
Result: Appeals allowed in part; investigation against the main accused restored, proceedings against one respondent upheld.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Accused sought quashing of FIR under Section 482 CrPC; victim challenged the High Court's order quashing the proceedings. (Para 4 )
3. High Court erred by relying on external aid instead of FIR contents to determine prima facie offence at a preliminary stage. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
4. High Courts exercising Section 482 CrPC should generally rely on FIR contents as gospel truth to determine prima facie offences without using external aid. (Para 7 , 8 )
5. Investigation restored against main accused; quashing upheld for one co-accused; matter remitted to High Court for remaining co-accused. (Para 11 )
6. What is the general approach for a High Court when exercising powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings at the threshold?
The High Court should generally rely on the contents of the FIR, treating them as gospel truth, to determine whether a prima facie offence is made out. (Para 7 )
7. Can a High Court rely on external aid or evidence not in the FIR to quash proceedings at a preliminary stage?
Such recourse is generally not advised at the preliminary stage, as the accused can seek discharge or establish innocence during the trial. (Para 8 , 9 )
8. When is the quashing of proceedings justified for a co-accused even if the main accused's proceedings are restored?
Quashing is justified when there is no cogent basis or convincing attribution in the FIR to connect the accused with the alleged crime. (Para 9 )
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant is the victim-complainant in FIR No.36/2020 dated 02.02.2020, under Sections 376 -D, 418, and 506 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (in short, the "IPC"), registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Alwar. It seems that the appellant was residing in Jaipur for preparation and coaching for competitive exams when she was introduced to respondent no.2 (Radhakrishan Meena), namely, the main accused, somewhere between January and March 2018. They exchanged phone numbers and have been in contact with each other since. While the appellant claims that respondent no.2 proposed marriage, to which she had consented, respondent no.2 denied expressing any such desire. As per the allegations contained in the FIR, the appellant and respondent no.2 developed a physical relationship in January 2018 itself. They travelled together to other places like Hanumangarh, etc. The appellant claims that respondent no.2 was actively assisted by his co-accused, namely, respondent nos.3 to 7 in duping the appellant on the pretext that respondent no.2 would marry her, thus, forcing her to continue with the physical relationship. As the marriage did not materialize between the parties, the appellant lodged the subject-FIR with specific allegations of committing rape on her, by respondent no.2, under the false pretext of marriage. She also made various allegations against respondent nos.3 to 7, but none of them had been attributed commission of rape on her. The appellant's statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the "Cr.P.C.") was recorded in which she reiterated the allegations made by her in the complaint.
3. It seems that upon investigation, the police initially found that a prima facie case under the above-mentioned provisions of IPC was made out, though later on, the Investigating Agency resiled from its stand and supported respondent no.2 (Radhakrishan Meena) and his co-accused.
4. Eventually, the main accused, namely, respondent no.2 (Radhakrishan Meena) and his co-accused approached the High Court, seeking quashing of the FIR and all the proceedings arising therefrom. In this regard, powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C were invoked. Vide the impugned judgment, the High Court accepted that petition and has quashed the proceedings, with a direction to the Investigating Agency to submit a closure report.
5. At this stage, it may also be noted that while the appellant - victim is employed as a Guard in the Jail Department, the main accused - respondent no.2 (Radhakrishan Meena) is serving in the Customs Department and is presently posted in the State of Gujarat.
6. We have heard learned senior counsel for the parties and perused the material placed by them on record.
7. This Court has, from time to time, evolved the outer limits and contours within which powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be safely exercised by a High Court with a view to prevent the abuse of process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. Such parameters ordinarily dissuade a High Court from travelling into the realm of factual issues. The High Court, therefore, while invoking its powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings at the threshold would generally consider and rely upon the contents of an FIR. Further, the High Court will proceed on the premise of whether such contents, even if taken as gospel truth, would constitute a prima facie offence or not. We find that the High Court, in the instant case, had to take external aid to form a definite opinion that no offence under Section 376 or other related provisions of IPC was made out against the respondents.
8. Such recourse may not be well advised at the preliminary stage, especially when no irreversible damage will be caused to the accused person, who will get a fair opportunity to seek his discharge at an appropriate stage, or alternatively, can establish his innocence at a later stage of the trial. All th
