S. 482 CrPC | Delhi HC Quashes Sexual Assault FIR, Citing 'Absurd and Inherently Improbable' Allegations Despite Magistrate's Order - 2025-09-30

Delhi High Court Quashes Sexual Assault FIR Against Retired Army General, Cites 'Absurd and Inherently Improbable' Allegations

New Delhi: In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Amit Mahjan, has quashed an FIR for attempted rape and sexual assault against a 72-year-old retired Lieutenant General, Lt Gen Inderjit Singh. The Court invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), deeming the allegations "absurd and inherently improbable" and concluding that continuing the proceedings would be an "abuse of process of law."

The decision sets aside a Magistrate Court's order dated August 26, 2020, which had directed the police to register an FIR against the decorated army officer based on a complaint filed by his neighbour.

Case Background

The case originated from a complaint filed by the respondent (Respondent No.2), who alleged that on April 28, 2020, Lt Gen Inderjit Singh (the petitioner) attempted to rape her in a public park adjoining their residences. She claimed he snatched her phone, pounced on her, pressed her breast, and threw her to the ground in a dark part of the park before her mother intervened.

Following the complaint, the Magistrate, under Section 156(3) CrPC, ordered the registration of an FIR. The Magistrate criticized the police for conducting a detailed preliminary inquiry instead of immediately lodging the FIR upon receiving information about a cognizable sexual offence, as mandated by law. Aggrieved by this order, Lt Gen Singh approached the High Court seeking to quash both the order and the subsequent FIR.

Arguments from Both Sides

Petitioner's Submissions: The petitioner's counsel argued that he was falsely implicated due to pre-existing disputes over the maintenance of the public park. It was contended that multiple police status reports and statements from independent witnesses exonerated him. The defence highlighted that:

- The allegations were ex-facie false and concocted, with no evidence to support them.

- The respondent had a history of making similar serious allegations against her own family members and other neighbours.

- Fifteen witnesses, including three eyewitnesses, told the police that only a verbal argument occurred, with no physical altercation.

- The petitioner, a 72-year-old decorated officer, would not attempt such an act in a public area in the presence of his wife, daughter, and domestic staff.

Respondent's Submissions: Counsel for the respondent argued that the High Court should not interfere with the Magistrate's well-reasoned order, especially under the limited scope of Section 482 CrPC. Key arguments included:

- The petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had not exhausted the alternative remedy of a revision petition.

- The police had erred by conducting a preliminary inquiry instead of registering an FIR, which is mandatory in cases of sexual assault.

- The truth could only be determined after a thorough investigation, and the petitioner's defence evidence could not be appreciated at this stage.

High Court's Reasoning and Legal Principles

Justice Mahajan first addressed the maintainability of the petition, holding that the availability of an alternative remedy (like a revision petition) does not bar the High Court from exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice.

The Court then referenced the landmark judgment in ** State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992)**, which outlines categories where the High Court can quash proceedings. The present case, the Court found, fell under the category where allegations are "so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."

While acknowledging the Magistrate's correct observation that police should have registered the FIR immediately, the Court noted that once an inquiry report was on record, its findings could not be ignored. The judgment emphasized a key judicial responsibility:

> "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. This Court is thus burdened with the responsibility of balancing equities..."

The Court highlighted several improbable aspects of the complaint:

- Absurdity of Allegations: It found it "improbable" and "preposterous" that a 70-year-old man would attempt a sexual assault in a public park in the presence of his family and neighbours.

- Lack of Corroboration: No independent witness supported the complainant's version of events; instead, they reported only a verbal altercation.

- Contradictory Evidence: Videos and photos taken after the incident showed the complainant's clothes were intact and she had no visible injuries, contradicting her claims of being physically mauled. The police inquiry also found she had allegedly edited audio clips to portray herself as a victim.

Final Decision

Concluding that the continuation of proceedings would be a "miscarriage of justice," the High Court allowed the petition.

> "Considering the aforesaid discussion in relation to the absurd nature of the allegations which are not supported by a shadow of credible evidence, in the opinion of this Court, continuation of proceedings will be an abuse of process of law. Subjecting the petitioner to suffer the tribulations of trial in such circumstances would be tantamount to miscarriage of justice and the same warrants interference by this Court."

The Court quashed the Magistrate's order of August 26, 2020, and any FIR registered pursuant to it, thereby clearing the retired army officer of all charges in the matter.