Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 261

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, CJI., JOYMALYA BAGCHI, N. V. ANJARIA, JJ.
In Re: Order dated 17.03.2025 Passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 1449 of 2024 and Ancillary Issues
Suo Moto Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1 of 2025 with Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 991 of 2026) (Diary No. 15692 of 2025) with Criminal Appeal No. 1195 of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. of 2026) (Diary No. 21813 of 2025)
Decided On : 10-02-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Prashant Padmanabhan, AOR Mr. H. S. Phoolka, Sr. Adv. Mr. Bhuwan Ribhu, Adv. Ms. Rachna Tyagi, Adv. Ms. Shashi, AOR Mr. Saksham Maheshwari, Adv. Ms. Surabhi Katyal, Adv. Ms. Surpreet Kaur, Adv. Mr. Amar Lal, Adv. By Courts Motion, AOR
For the respondent(s): Mr. Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, Sr. A.A.G. Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR Mr. Sharanya, Adv. Ms. Ritika Rao, Adv. Ms. Ayushi Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Shobha Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aditya Ranjan, AOR Ms. Yogmaya MG, Adv. Ms. Komal Saini, Adv. Ms. Siny Sara Varghese, Adv. Mr. Rohin Bhatt, Adv. Mr. Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, Sr. A.A.G. Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR Mr. Sharanya, Adv. Ms. Ritika Rao, Adv. Ms. Ayushi Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Pritam Singh, Adv. Mr. Umesh Kumar Shukla, Adv. Ms. Parvathi Menon, Adv. Mr. Sangeeth Mohan, Adv. Mr. Rahul Gupta, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Judicial system, as a cohesive framework, is designed to deliver justice and satisfaction to citizens who seek redressal of their grievances before it.

Headnote:
(A) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Suo motu writ petition – Preparation and attempt to commit offence of rape – It is stated that accused persons took minor victim with them as a pillion rider on their motorcycle, after assuring her mother (Complainant) that they would drop victim at her residence – Accused persons, instead, stopped motorcycle near a culvert, dragged her towards it, and committed sexually offensive acts – However, due to shrieks of minor victim, two witnesses reached spot, causing accused persons to flee from site – Prima facie, case for invoking provisions of attempt to commit rape has been made out by complainant and prosecution – Impugned judgment is liable to be set aside on account of patently erroneous application of settled principles of criminal jurisprudence – Impugned Judgment set aside and original summons order passed by Special Judge restored. (Paras 12, 14 and 15)
(B) Administration of Justice – Judicial system, as a cohesive framework, is designed to deliver justice and satisfaction to citizens who seek redressal of their grievances before it – To meet such objective, our efforts must not only be grounded in sound application of constitutional and legal principles but also foster an environment of compassion and empathy – Absence of either of these cornerstones would prevent judicial institutions from properly performing their critical duties – No Judge or judgment of any Court can be expected to do complete justice when it is inconsiderate towards factual realities of a litigant and vulnerabilities which they may be facing in approaching Court of law – Some action is required to be taken to inculcate and nurture an inherent sensitivity and discernment into approach of members of Judiciary, as well as into accompanying Court Procedures – Directions issued. (Paras 18, 19 and 20)
Facts of the case:
High Court’s decision in impugned judgment hinges on whether the accused persons have only ‘prepared’ to commit the offence of rape or have moved beyond that to have ‘attempted’ to commit the said crime. Notably, the High Court has concluded that the actions of the accused persons were limited only to the former, thereby warranting a modification in the charge on which the accused were summoned.
Findings of Court:
Committee of Experts shall be at liberty to seek the assistance of other experts on this matter, such as linguistics academicians, prosecutors, litigators, social scientists, and counsellors, as it deems necessary.
Result : Suo motu case disposed of.

JUDGMENT

SURYA KANT, J.

Permission to file Special Leave Petitions in Diary No. 15692 of 2025

2. Application for intervention is allowed.

3. Leave granted.

4. The instant suo motu writ petition was registered in accordance with the directions of Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India, prompted by a letter dated 20.03.2025 received from an organisation named ‘We the Women of India’, through its Founder President, Ms. Shobha Gupta, Senior Advocate.

5. Vide the said letter, she brought our attention to a judgment dated 17.03.2025 passed by a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (“High Court”) in Criminal Revision No. 1449/2024, whereby the learned Single Judge has modified the order of summons dated 26.03.2023 issued by the Special Judge (POCSO), Kasganj to two accused persons in Complaint Case No. 23/2022. While the Trial Court had originally issued summons under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) read with Section 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”), the High Court has revised the same to be under a lesser charge under Section 354B of the IPC read with Sections 9 and 10 of the POCSO Act. As per the High Court, this action was necessitated owing to its finding that a prima facie view of the alleged facts did not make out a case for attempt to commit rape.

6. Ms. Gupta, through the letter, urged that the observations made and reasoning adopted by the High Court to reach the said conclusion are erroneous in law, insensitive, irresponsible, and likely to demoralise all efforts towards protecting women and other vulnerable persons from sexual offences.

7. Similar concerns have also been highlighted by the appellants in Diary Nos. 15692 and 21813/2025, which assail the same judgment dated 17.03.2025 of the High Court. While Diary No. 21813/2025 has been filed by an NGO registered in Kolkata, the petitioners in Diary No. 15692/2025 include an NGO registered in Delhi as well as the complainant in Complaint Case No. 23/2022, who is the mother of the minor victim.

8. Notice was issued to the Union of India, the State of Uttar Pradesh, and the parties to the Criminal Revision before the High Court vide order dated 26.03.2025. Simultaneously, the observations of the High Court in paragraphs 21, 24, and 26 of the impugned order were stayed. Subsequently, on 08.12.2025, this Court stayed the operation of the entire judgment dated 17.03.2025, clarifying that the trial in Complaint Case No.23/2022 shall proceed as if the summons had been issued under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the IPC and Section 18 of the POCSO Act.

9. We have heard Ms. Shobha Gupta, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. H.S. Phoolka, learned Senior Counsel, representing the Delhi-based NGO and the complainant-mother, and Mr. Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the State of Uttar Pradesh. We have already recorded in our previous order dated 08.12.2025 that the accused persons are fully aware of these proceedings, and despite the service of notice, no one has entered appearance on their behalf. Besides this, we have perused the various documents placed on record by the parties, including the intervention- applicant.

A. RE: IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 17.03.2025

10. The High Court’s decision in the impugned judgment hinges on whether the accused persons have only ‘prepared’ to commit the offence of rape or have moved beyond that to have ‘attempted’ to commit the said crime. Notably, the High Court has concluded that the actions of the accused persons were limited only to the former, thereby warranting a modification in the charge on which the accused were summoned.

11. The meaning, scope, and comparative understanding of the concepts of ‘preparation’ and ‘attempt’ in criminal jurisprudence has been cogently explained by a 2-judge bench of this Court, in a judgment authored by one of us (Surya Kant, J., as he then was) in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mahendra alias Golu, reported in (2022

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(SC) 261

IMPORTANT POINTJudicial system, as a cohesive framework, is designed to deliver justice and satisfaction to citizens who seek redressal of their grievances before it.

Cases Referred (1)

Related Judgments

In Re: Order dated 17. 03. 2025 Passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 1449 of 2024 and Ancillary Issues VS . - 2026 3 Supreme 315

State of Madhya Pradesh VS Mahendra alias Golu - 2021 7 Supreme 409

Mathura Thakur, Son of Late Bandhu Thakur VS State of Jharkhand - 2021 Supreme(Jhk) 138

APARNA BHAT VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - 2021 3 Supreme 31

Smt Kavitha Gottipati vs State - 2022 Supreme(Online)(AP) 5036

IN RE: Right to Privacy of Adolescents VS . - 2024 6 Supreme 193

State of Maharashtra VS Maroti S/o Kashinath Pimpalkar - 2022 8 Supreme 327

Ishwar Chand Sharma VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2026 Supreme(SC) 634

Hari VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2021 8 Supreme 431

In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents VS . - 2025 6 Supreme 29

IMPORTANT POINT
Judicial system, as a cohesive framework, is designed to deliver justice and satisfaction to citizens who seek redressal of their grievances before it.