Supreme Court | S.482 CrPC / S.528 BNSS | Four-Step Test Laid Down for High Courts to Quash Criminal Proceedings | Summoning on Vague, Delayed and Uncorroborated Allegations Held Abuse of Process
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside the order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which had declined to interfere with a summoning order issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad. The Court quashed the pending criminal proceedings, holding that their continuation would amount to a gross abuse of the process of law. Importantly, the Bench laid down specific steps to be followed by High Courts when considering petitions for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, now reflected in Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The matter originated from a private complaint lodged on 11 August 2014 before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad. The complainant, describing herself as a Scheduled Caste student, alleged that in 2010 the accused had enticed her, committed rape, made a video recording, and continued to subject her to sexual acts under threat of exposure. The complaint was presented as an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking police investigation.
The allegations covered a wide range of offences, invoking Sections 323, 504, 376, 452, 377, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The complainant alleged that she had been pursuing her studies at Allahabad University and attending a coaching institute when she came into contact with the accused, who developed a relationship with her. The complaint described incidents of forced sexual intercourse, threats of releasing video recordings, and repeated assaults.
Further allegations included a pregnancy in 2011, subsequent administration of abortion medication by the accused, and continued visits by him even after obtaining employment in Faridabad. The complaint also recounted that when she and her guardian confronted him in Faridabad regarding marriage, they were allegedly abused with caste-based remarks by the accused and others. Police intervention at that stage, it was claimed, did not result in further action, and subsequent complaints to authorities were also stated to have remained unaddressed.
Upon receipt of the complaint, the Magistrate opted not to direct police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC but instead took cognizance and ordered a magisterial inquiry under Section 202 CrPC. Following the inquiry, process was issued against the accused for the offence of rape under Section 376 IPC. The summoning order fixed the date for appearance.
The accused challenged the summoning order before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by invoking Section 482 CrPC, seeking quashing of the proceedings. The High Court, by order dated 12 September 2019, declined to interfere and dismissed the application. Aggrieved by that decision, the accused approached the Supreme Court by way of appeal.
Before the Supreme Court, counsel for the appellant argued that the complaint was filed after an unexplained delay of four years, lacked material particulars, and was an abuse of the process of law. It was submitted that the relationship between the parties was consensual and that allegations of rape had been fabricated after the relationship broke down. Counsel for the State submitted that as cognizance was taken on a private complaint, the State had no substantive role in the matter.
The Supreme Court observed that the complaint did not inspire confidence, noting: “It is very apparent on a plain reading of the complaint, more particularly, considering the nature of the allegations that the same doesn’t inspire any confidence. There is no good explanation offered, why it took four years for the respondent no.2 to file a complaint.”
The Court also recorded: “Not only the appellant was dragged into the criminal proceedings but even the parents of the appellant were arrayed as accused. Various other offences have been alleged. This itself makes the entire case doubtful. None of the allegations levelled in the complaint are substantiated by any other independent evidence on record.”
On the principles applicable to quashing proceedings, the Bench stated: “It is by now well settled that summoning any person on the basis of a frivolous or vexatious complaint is something very serious. This would tarnish the image of the person against whom false, frivolous and vexatious allegations are levelled.”
Citing precedent, the Court referred to Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951: “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 Court also addressed the distinction between consensual sex and rape, referring to Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, 2013 Cri LJ 2990: “There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex and in a case like this, the court must very carefully examine whether the accused had actually wanted to marry the victim, or had mala fide motives, and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the latter falls within the ambit of cheating or deception.”
To guide future adjudication, the Supreme Court articulated a structured four-step test:
“Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable. Step two, whether the material relied upon would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled. Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution or is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted. Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice.”
The Court concluded: “If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings. “The fact that the complainant thought fit not to even accept the notice issued by this Court is one additional ground that she was not at all serious right from day one.”
The Supreme Court declared that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process. It recorded: “We need not say anything further in the matter as we are of the view that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellant would be nothing but gross abuse of the process of law.”
“In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. The proceedings of Criminal Case No.655/2014 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate are hereby quashed.”
Pending applications in the matter were also disposed of by the Court.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Bibek Tripathi, Adv.; Mr. Y. Lokesh, Adv.; Mr. Sudhakar Tiwari, Adv.; Mr. Ajay Kumar Shrivastav, Adv.; Mr. Mohit Kumar Gupta, Adv.; Mr. Akshat Srivastava, AOR
For the Respondents: Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, AOR; Ms. Pooja Singh, Adv.; Ms. Pallavi Kumari, Adv.; Mr. Shashank Pachauri, Adv.
Case Title: Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 11642 of 2019)
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice Sandeep Mehta
