FIR and Chargesheet Quashed Where Court Found Strong Possibility of Ulterior Motive

A two-judge Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh heard an appeal against the High Court of Madhya Pradesh’s refusal to quash a First Information Report and subsequent chargesheet arising from allegations of sexual intercourse by a promise of marriage. The appellant challenged the High Court order dated 27 January 2025, invoking the inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of criminal proceedings registered under Sections 376 and 376(2)(n) IPC.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment and order, and quashed the FIR and chargesheet against the appellant. The Bench emphasised that where criminal proceedings appeared to be initiated with an ulterior motive or mala fide intent the Court must look beyond the averments in the FIR and examine surrounding circumstances and antecedent events. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “(7) 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 judgment further noted the guidance in Mohd. Wajid that “the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely” when allegations of vexatious or malicious prosecution were raised. Having regard to the totality of the record — including prior administrative complaints and notices issued by the appellant against the complainant and the timing of the FIR — the Bench concluded that the proceedings were susceptible to being quashed as a likely vehicle of revenge and allowed the appeal, observing that “the FIR and the chargesheet against the Appellant-accused ought to be quashed.”

Background

The dispute arose from a workplace relationship between the appellant, an Assistant Revenue Inspector, and the complainant, a Computer Operator employed by Suhagi Municipal Corporation. The parties had been colleagues for about five years and, according to the complainant, their friendship developed into intimacy. She alleged that on 15 March 2023 the appellant induced her into sexual intercourse by promising marriage, and when she later pressed for matrimony he refused and asked her to marry someone else. She filed an FIR on 7 August 2023 alleging rape by promise of marriage under Sections 376 and 376(2)(n) IPC; the police completed investigation and filed a chargesheet.

Prior to the FIR, the appellant had lodged complaints and representations alleging harassment by the complainant, including a complaint under Section 155 Cr.P.C. dated 24 April 2023 and representations to municipal authorities and the Superintendent of Police. The complainant received a show-cause notice from her employer on 6 July 2023 threatening removal if she did not respond, which the Bench treated as a material antecedent. The High Court refused to quash the FIR, observing that “At this stage, it cannot be said that there was false promise or not. It will be matter of evidence before the trial Court to decide the same. It will be too early to quash FIR on the said pretext.” On appeal, this Court reviewed the surrounding circumstances, applied established precedents including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Mohd. Wajid v. State of U.P., and found a strong possibility of mala fide institution and ulterior motive. The Supreme Court therefore allowed the appeal, quashed the FIR and chargesheet, set aside the High Court order dated 27 January 2025, and ordered that pending applications, if any, stood closed.

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3361 of 2025)
Case Title: Surendra Khawse v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Mrigendra Singh, Senior Counsel; assisted by Ms. Niti Richhariya, Advocate-on-Record
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Bhupendra Pratap Singh, Deputy Advocate General; assisted by Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, Advocate-on-Record