Back
Family Property Feud Sparks 'Belated' Rape Claim—Rajasthan HC Calls Foul, Quashes FIR
In a scathing rebuke to what it termed a "," the has quashed an FIR alleging rape, house-trespass, and criminal intimidation against Kamlesh Kumar Suman. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand ruled that the complainant's failure to mention the alleged , assault in an earlier FIR exposed the charges as vindictive, fueled by a simmering family property dispute. This single-judge bench decision underscores how delayed, inconsistent allegations can abuse the criminal justice system.
From Assault FIR to Rape Accusation: The Timeline Unravels
The saga began on , when Bhupendra Suman—respondent and brother-in-law to the petitioner—filed FIR No. 80/2021 at Kishanganj Police Station, Baran district. He accused Kamlesh's wife and son of assaulting him under , with Kamlesh allegedly abetting. Investigation cleared Kamlesh, prompting Bhupendra's plea for a reinvestigation.
Two months later, on —over 2.5 months after the supposed incident—Bhupendra lodged FIR No. 127/2021. This time, he claimed Kamlesh trespassed into his home on May 3, threatened him, and raped his wife "D," a major. No immediate complaint from either Bhupendra or "D." The backdrop? A bitter property tussle where Kamlesh refused to yield his share.
Petitioner's Defense: Delay and Motive Scream Fabrication
Kamlesh's counsel, with and , hammered the anomalies. Why no rape FIR on May 3 or even after the May 5 assault report, which curiously skipped any sexual assault mention? They spotlighted the property rift as the "ulterior motive," invoking the 's State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) guidelines for quashing proceedings .
The state public prosecutor and Bhupendra's advocate countered weakly: fear and apprehension delayed the rape FIR.
Court's Dissection: Precedents Seal the Deal
Justice Dhand meticulously parsed the record. The May 5 FIR detailed the property clash but omitted any rape hint, despite the alleged prior assault. Post-clearance of Kamlesh, the rape claim magically surfaced—classic abuse, the court held.
Drawing from Bhajan Lal , the bench listed quashing parameters: where allegations don't make out an offense, or smack of malice for vengeance. It leaned heavily on the 's recent Batlanki Keshav Kumar Anurag v. State of Telangana (2025), where contradictory, belated FIRs over the same events were deemed a "." There, non-disclosure in an initial FIR fatally undermined later claims, mirroring this case.
As noted in legal circles, including reports on the judgment, such
"non-disclosure of a serious offence within a reasonable time"
when an earlier FIR exists
"would falsify the allegations and render the subsequent complaint/FIR an
."
Key Observations Straight from the Bench
-
On the damning delay :
"The instant has been lodged by the complainant after a delay of more than two and half month i.e. on for the alleged incident which had occurred on and no reasons have been assigned for registration of the at such a belated stage."
-
Echoing wisdom :
"Non-disclosure of the occurrence in the first FIR No.80/2021 and disclosure of the same in the second FIR No.127/2021 as fatal to the case of the therein being contradictory."
-
The final indictment :
"The No.127/2021 is nothing but a full of fabricated and malicious allegations... These facts on record clearly establish the vindictive and manipulative tendency of the complainant."
Verdict Delivered: FIR Erased, Prosecution Halted
The petition succeeded. Justice Dhand quashed FIR No. 127/2021 under , along with all consequent proceedings. No trial for Kamlesh, sparing him a protracted battle over what the court saw as revenge porn—er, plot.
This ruling fortifies safeguards against weaponized FIRs in family feuds, urging courts to probe delays and inconsistencies early. For victims' advocates, a caution: genuine claims must stand timely scrutiny, lest they fuel skepticism.
