1. Alleged rape on pretext of marriage — FIR and charge-sheet filed under Sections 376 and 376(2)(n) IPC — Petition for quashing under Section 528 BNSS. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1722
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
Surendra Khawse – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 4213 of 2025 [Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3361 of 2025]
Decided On : 22-09-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Niti Richhariya, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. D. S. Parmar, A.A.G. Mr. Bhupendra Pratap Singh, D.A.G. Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, AOR Mr. Saurabh Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Chaudhary, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Niti Richhariya, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. D. S. Parmar, A.A.G. Mr. Bhupendra Pratap Singh, D.A.G. Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, AOR Mr. Saurabh Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Chaudhary, Adv.
FIR quashed due to indications of ulterior motives and bad faith behind the complaint, emphasizing courts' duty to assess overall circumstances in criminal proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of FIR and charge-sheet for alleged rape on pretext of marriage - High Court refused to quash; appeal allowed, FIR quashed citing ulterior motives of complainant. (Paras 2, 9, 13, 15)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Exercise of inherent power of High Court - Court should consider all surrounding circumstances, not just averments in FIR alone, especially if ulterior motives are suspected. (Paras 12, 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant and Respondent were colleagues; after a failed intimate relationship, allegations of rape were made by the Respondent, stating coercion into relations under the promise of marriage. The FIR was lodged after a show cause notice mirroring harassment allegations from the Appellant against the Respondent.
Findings of Court:
The FIR and charge-sheet held to be maliciously instituted with ulterior motives and thus, were quashed.
Issues: Whether the FIR and charge-sheet were based on a false promise and whether ulterior motives existed behind the filing of the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that there appears to be a significant possibility that the FIR was lodged after the issuance of a show cause notice as a means to retaliate, indicating bad faith behind the proceedings.
Result: Appeal allowed; FIR and charge-sheet quashed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the criminal proceedings were maliciously instituted for vengeance following administrative complaints against the complainant, or if the allegations of false promise require trial. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 9 )
3. FIR filed after administrative complaints and show-cause notice, combined with a four-month delay, suggests the proceedings were initiated as an afterthought for vengeance. (Para 13 )
4. Criminal proceedings may be quashed if they are manifestly mala fide or maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance due to personal grudge. (Para 14 )
5. Appeal allowed — FIR and charge-sheet quashed — High Court order set aside. (Para 15 )
6. Under what circumstances can a High Court quash criminal proceedings based on the motive of the complainant?
Criminal proceedings can be quashed when they are manifestly attended with mala fide or are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite them due to a private and personal grudge. (Para 14 )
7. How should a court evaluate an FIR when it is alleged to be frivolous or vexatious?
The court owes a duty to look beyond the averments in the FIR and examine other attending circumstances emerging from the record, reading between the lines to determine if the proceedings are instituted for personal vengeance. (Para 14 )
8. Does a delay in filing an FIR combined with prior administrative disputes impact the decision to quash proceedings?
Yes, if the FIR is lodged after the accused initiated administrative actions and after a significant delay, it may be viewed as an afterthought and a vehicle for vengeance, justifying the quashing of the proceedings. (Para 13 )
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KAROL, J.
1. Leave Granted.
2. Under challenge in this appeal is a judgment and order dated 27th January 2025 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 48079 of 2023 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, titled analogously where the High Court has refused to exercise its powers under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 [For short ‘ BNSS 2023’] seeking quashing of the First Information Report2 [For short ‘FIR’] and the charge-sheet.3 [Dated 07th August 2023, P.S. Adhartaal bearing no. 0934/2023 under Sections 376 and 376 (2)(n) IPC]
3. The brief facts leading to the impugned judgment are that the complainant, Respondent No. 2 herein was a Computer Operator employed at Suhagi Municipal Corporation where the appellant-accused was working as Assistant Revenue Inspector and in the course of regular interactions they became friendly with one another and such friendship eventually progressed further. It is important to note here that the complainant at an earlier point in time was married and had also begotten a son from the wedlock. This friendship and eventual physical intimacy turned sour which led to the instant proceedings.
4. The allegation levelled by the complainant against the Appellant-accused is that when the latter proposed the possibility of taking their friendship further, she had clearly stated that she was married and had a son to which he agreed or in other words, the implications of which he understood and also said that they would, at one point in future, be joined in matrimony. It is then alleged that on 15th March 2023 the Appellant-accused called the complainant to his residence after office hours and forced intimate relations with her. When she resisted/refused he assured her of marriage and asked her not to worry. This situation continued till 10th April 2023. A few days thereafter, upon being asked as to why they are yet to get married, the complainant alleges that the Appellant-accused refused and asked her to marry someone else. Terming this to be rape on pretext of marriage, the complainant filed the subject FIR.
5. Certain other facts are also required to be taken note of. The relationship having soured, the Appellant-accused filed a complaint under Section 155 Cr.P.C. [Code of Criminal Procedure 1973] on 24th April 2023 before P.S. Adhartaal District-Jabalpur alleging that the complainant with whom he does not want any relationship or dealing, repeatedly threatened him saying that she would kill herself and even on the day of filing of the said complaint, she came to his residence asking him to speak with her, hurled abuses and also consumed rat poison. Subsequently, the Appellant-accused also lodged a complaint with the Municipal Commissioner, Jabalpur dated 05th July 2023 detailing the alleged harassment by the complainant to the effect of false implication in cases and stating that if the harassment continues, he will be forced to commit suicide. A similar complaint was also submitted to the Divisional Officer, Nagar Nigam.
6. As a consequence of the said representation, the complainant was issued a show cause notice dated 6th July 2023 where she was asked to rectify her behaviour and submit a clarification against the allegations within a period of 24 hours. It was stated therein that should she not furnish such a clarification, she would be relieved of employment. The Appellant-accused also submitted a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur, in similar terms as the representations referred to in the preceding paragraph.
7. It is to be noted that the FIR and charge-sheet which are the subject matter of the instant proceedings, are developments subsequent to the representations made by the Appellant-accused.
8. The Appellant-accused filed a petition under Section 482 , Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR on 13th October 2023. The police completed its investigation and presented charge-sheet for trial, as already noted supra.
9. In terms of the impugned judgm
