Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh set aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court order and quashed an FIR and chargesheet against a municipal employee accused of rape on the pretext of marriage. The Court, invoking its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, held that the circumstances suggested the criminal proceedings were initiated as an afterthought and driven by personal vengeance, given the delay in lodging the complaint and prior administrative disputes between the parties. The Court concluded that continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of the judicial process.

The case originated from a complaint lodged by Respondent No. 2, who was employed as a Computer Operator at Suhagi Municipal Corporation. The complainant and the appellant, an Assistant Revenue Inspector at the same corporation, developed a friendly relationship that eventually progressed into physical intimacy. The complainant was previously married and had a son. According to her allegations, the appellant had agreed to marry her despite knowing of her marital history.

Also Read: Supreme Court Restores CCI’s 2015 Order | Confirms Penalties and Two-Year Debarment on Kerala Film Exhibitors Federation for Anti-Competitive Boycott

On 15 March 2023, the complainant alleged that the appellant called her to his residence after office hours and forced intimate relations, assuring her of marriage when she resisted. This alleged situation continued until 10 April 2023. When she enquired about marriage thereafter, the appellant allegedly refused and asked her to marry someone else. Based on these assertions, she filed a First Information Report on 7 August 2023 at Police Station Adhartaal, Jabalpur, bearing No. 0934/2023, under Sections 376 and 376(2)(n) IPC. A chargesheet was filed on 20 October 2023.

Meanwhile, the appellant had taken certain legal and administrative steps against the complainant. On 24 April 2023, he filed a complaint under Section 155 CrPC before P.S. Adhartaal, alleging harassment and threats of suicide by the complainant. He further lodged a complaint with the Municipal Commissioner, Jabalpur, on 5 July 2023, describing harassment and threats of false implication. A similar complaint was filed with the Divisional Officer, Nagar Nigam. Following these representations, the complainant received a show-cause notice on 6 July 2023, directing her to rectify her behavior within 24 hours or face termination.

The FIR and chargesheet were lodged after these administrative measures had been initiated by the appellant. The appellant subsequently filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS, 2023) before the High Court, seeking quashing of the FIR. However, by order dated 27 January 2025 in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 48079 of 2023, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur refused to quash the FIR, holding that whether there was a false promise of marriage was a matter for trial.

The Supreme Court examined the statutory provision. Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 states: “Nothing in this Sanhita shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Sanhita, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

The Bench recorded that the exercise of such powers has been elaborated in various judgments, including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) 335), M. Srikanth v. State of Telangana (2019) 10 SCC 373, and Balaji Traders v. State of U.P. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1314.

The Court noted: “As apparent from the record, the Appellant-accused and the complainant had been colleagues for the past 5 years and it is somewhere during this time that their relationship progressed.” The Court further stated: “We notice once again that the Appellant-accused had initiated legal processes/administrative processes against the complainant much prior to the subject FIR being lodged.” These included complaints to the police, Municipal Commissioner, and Divisional Officer, which resulted in a show-cause notice against the complainant.

The Court observed that the FIR was lodged only after issuance of the show-cause notice with serious implications for the complainant’s employment. It recorded: “If the description of the offence is taken at face value, right at the first instance, the complainant was not willing and was persuaded to engage in relations on the assurance of eventual marriage between the parties. When she enquired as to when the same would take place, a few days later, allegedly the Appellant-accused refused and asked her to marry someone else. That would be the first occasion when, having realized that she had been taken advantage of the complainant should have taken the requisite action.”

The Court held: “Even if that was not done so, the fact that the subject FIR was only lodged after the issuance of show-cause notice, which obviously has large real-world implications insofar as the complainant is concerned, leaves open a gaping possibility that the same was lodged as an afterthought and was a vehicle for vengeance for the impending consequences described above.”

Also Read: Delhi High Court Orders Release of Detained Gold Jewellery on Payment of Duty and Fine | After Court’s Directive, Customs Finalises Baggage Rules Amendments and Seeks Time for IT Upgrade

Relying on the Bhajan Lal principles, the Court quoted: “Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” The Court also cited Mohd. Wajid v. State of U.P. (2023) 20 SCC 219, noting: “In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines.”

The Supreme Court concluded: “In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the FIR and the chargesheet against the Appellant-accused ought to be quashed.”

“The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh with particulars as mentioned in paragraph 2, is set aside.” It further directed: “Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Mrigendra Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Niti Richhariya, Advocate-on-Record.
For the Respondents: Mr. Bhupendra Pratap Singh, Deputy Advocate General for the State, assisted by Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, Advocate-on-Record.

Case Title: Surendra Khawse v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1143
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3361 of 2025)
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh