Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court quashed an FIR registered against a former municipal councilor for offences under Sections 376, 417, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court held that the allegations were inherently improbable, delayed by 18 years, and contradicted by earlier proceedings initiated by the complainant herself. It found the FIR to be maliciously instituted with mala fide intent, and thus unsustainable in law
.
Facts
The complainant, belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, alleged that she met the accused when he was the secretary of her son’s school. The accused allegedly promised to bear her child’s school fees, later assured her of marriage, and forced physical relations on her without consent. These acts allegedly continued for years, resulting in the birth of a daughter in 1999 and a son in 2001. The complainant alleged that she was threatened with harm to her and her children if she disclosed the relationship, and caste-based insults were hurled at her.
Despite these serious allegations, the FIR was lodged only in July 2014—almost two decades after the alleged incidents began. Before this FIR, the complainant had filed proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act (2011) and for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC (2012), where she described herself as the wife of the accused. The accused, in turn, had filed a criminal complaint against her in 2013 for forgery and cheating after she changed her name in the official gazette using his surname. Only after this did she lodge the impugned FIR
.
Issues
- Whether the allegations in the FIR, made after an unexplained delay of 18 years, were credible and sustainable.
- Whether contradictory claims by the complainant—earlier asserting marital status and later alleging rape—undermined the FIR’s credibility.
- Whether ingredients of Section 3(1)(xii) of the SC/ST Act were made out on the basis of caste-related allegations.
- Whether the FIR was lodged with mala fide intention, attracting the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the FIR was politically motivated to tarnish his career, as he had been a six-term councilor and municipal council president. The complainant’s conduct, including filing maintenance and domestic violence cases treating herself as his wife, was inconsistent with allegations of rape. The FIR was lodged only after he had filed a criminal complaint against her in 2013 for forging documents.
He contended that the complaint was inherently improbable, filed with mala fide intent, and fell squarely within categories identified in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. He further relied on a series of Supreme Court rulings—Suresh Garodia v. State of Assam (2024), Dhruvaram Sonar v. State of Maharashtra (2019), Pramod Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019), Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra (2025), Sonu v. State of UP (2021), Hitesh Verma v. State of UP (2020), Priti Agarwalla v. State of GNCT Delhi (2021), and others—to argue that consensual relationships, especially long-term ones resulting in children, cannot later be converted into allegations of rape on false promises of marriage
.
Respondent’s Arguments
The complainant, represented through legal aid, opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner exploited his position of authority to repeatedly commit rape under the guise of a false promise of marriage. She stressed that the petitioner had fathered two children with her, and his opposition to DNA testing supported her case. She maintained that casteist insults and threats attracted provisions of the SC/ST Act. She urged the Court not to quash the FIR, as it concerned serious offences against a vulnerable woman
.
Analysis of the Law
The Court reiterated that judicial intervention under Article 226 and Section 482 CrPC is warranted only in cases where continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process. It applied the principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) which allow quashing where allegations are inherently improbable or proceedings are instituted with mala fide intent.
The Court emphasized that contradictions in the complainant’s stance—alternatively claiming marriage and rape—struck at the root of her credibility. Furthermore, the unexplained delay of 18 years in lodging the FIR made the case inherently doubtful. It also noted that two children were born out of the alleged relationship, both now majors, further weakening the complainant’s claim of lack of consent.
Precedent Analysis
- Bhajan Lal (1992): Laid down illustrative categories for quashing FIRs, including absurd allegations and mala fide prosecution. Applied directly here.
- Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) 16 SCC 666: Held that courts must consider surrounding circumstances, not just FIR averments. Relied upon to scrutinize contradictions.
- Suresh Garodia (2024): FIR quashed due to unexplained delay of 34 years—similar to 18-year delay here.
- Amol Bhagwan Nehul (2025): Court quashed FIR as the complainant, being mature and divorced, could not claim continuous deception—applied to show improbability in long-term consensual relations.
- Sonu v. UP (2021): FIR quashed where refusal to marry after consensual relationship was sole allegation.
- Hitesh Verma (2020): Clarified scope of SC/ST Act—insults must be specifically linked to caste.
- Priti Agarwalla (2021): FIR under SC/ST Act quashed where no material supported caste-based offence.
These precedents reinforced that consensual long-term relationships with delayed complaints do not constitute rape under Section 376 IPC
.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that the FIR was lodged with mala fide intent after the petitioner initiated criminal proceedings against the complainant. It found no substantive evidence to support the allegations beyond bald statements. The complainant’s previous maintenance and domestic violence claims recognizing marital ties were wholly inconsistent with later rape allegations.
On the SC/ST charge, the Court noted that while casteist remarks were alleged, the complaint lacked specific details sufficient to sustain prosecution. Relying on Hitesh Verma, it clarified that not all insults amount to atrocities unless they are directly linked to caste-based humiliation.
The Court thus concluded that continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process and cause undue harassment to the petitioner
.
Conclusion
The High Court quashed FIR No. 250 of 2014 registered at Daund Police Station for offences under Sections 376, 417, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(xii) of the SC/ST Act. It held that the complaint was not genuine, inherently improbable, and instituted with mala fide motives. The judgment reaffirmed the principle that courts must prevent misuse of criminal law in cases of belated, contradictory, and unsubstantiated allegations
.
Implications
This judgment is significant in reinforcing safeguards against abuse of criminal law in sexual offence cases involving long-term consensual relationships. It underscores that mere allegations, without corroborative evidence and despite contradictory prior conduct, cannot sustain prosecutions for rape. The ruling also clarifies the limited scope of the SC/ST Act, ensuring it is not invoked casually without specific caste-based intent.
FAQs
1. Why did the Court quash the FIR despite allegations of rape?
The Court found the FIR was filed after 18 years, contradicted by earlier claims of marriage and maintenance, and lacked substantive evidence. Such circumstances made the allegations inherently improbable.
2. Does a long-term relationship with children negate rape allegations?
While not an automatic negation, courts consider whether consent was present. In this case, two children were born, and the complainant’s conduct suggested a consensual relationship, not rape.
3. When can FIRs under the SC/ST Act be quashed?
Courts may quash such FIRs if caste-based allegations are vague, not directly linked to caste humiliation, or filed with mala fide intent, as held in Hitesh Verma and applied here.
