High Court Quashes Rape Proceedings Against Accused, Finds Prosecution a Misuse of Process

A single-judge bench of Justice Avnish Saxena heard an application under Section 528 BNSS moved by the accused seeking quashment of the charge sheet, cognizance order and criminal proceedings in Case No. 82 of 2025 (State v. Ajay Saini and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 221 of 2024, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-1, Rampur. The petition challenged proceedings for offences under Sections 376, 328, 504, 506 and 323 IPC on the ground that the complaint was false, delayed and bereft of particulars.

The High Court allowed the application and quashed the charge sheet dated 25.12.2024, the cognizance order dated 23.01.2025 and the trial proceedings insofar as they related to the applicant. The Court found that the material collected during investigation, including the victim’s statements, did not disclose a prima facie case warranting continuation of prosecution against the applicant and that continuation would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The prima facie facts of the case discussed here-in-above including the legal propositions, this Court found that the present case stands on the footing of rarest of rare case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction for quashing the criminal proceedings, as continuing with criminal proceedings would be in futility and gross misuse of criminal jurisdiction. Hence, the application under Section 528 BNSS is having merit and liable to be allowed.” The judgment also reproduced earlier Supreme Court observations that “a presumption would arise that they voluntarily chose that kind of a relationship” and that “the continuation of the prosecution in the present case would amount to a gross abuse of the process of law.”

Background

The FIR was lodged on 03.12.2024 by the victim (opposite party no. 2) alleging that the applicant had lured her for a job interview in 2019, administered a stupefying substance in a cold drink or food at a hotel/restaurant in Moradabad, and raped her while she was unconscious. The FIR further alleged that thereafter the applicant repeatedly raped the victim over four years by making false promises of marriage, and that when the victim’s family confronted the applicant’s family on 18.08.2024 they were abused and threatened by the applicant’s father and brother.

The accused challenged the proceedings on the grounds of delay, absence of particulars as to date, time and place of the alleged offences, and material contradictions in the victim’s account across the FIR, statements recorded by the investigating officer under Section 180 BNSS and the statement under Section 164 CrPC. The prosecution relied on the victim’s recorded statements and the investigating officer’s finding of sufficient material to submit a charge sheet.

The Court examined the FIR, the victim’s statements and the investigation material and noted multiple inconsistencies: the location alternated between a hotel room and a restaurant-cum-hotel; the victim’s account shifted between stupefied cold drink and stupefied food; the name of the hotel was not disclosed in earlier statements and particulars of the alleged continuous sexual assaults over four years were absent. The Court applied settled principles governing exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS and referenced Supreme Court precedents including Ravish Singh Rana and Prashant which held that in long-term consensual relationships a presumption of voluntary intimacy may arise and that mere non-fulfillment of a promise to marry did not automatically convert a consensual relationship into an offence. The Court also relied on Mahesh Damu Khare and Samadhan S/o Sitaram Manmothe to underscore that where physical relations were maintained for a prolonged period, it could not be said with certainty that such relations were solely on account of a promise of marriage.

Finding that the prosecution case was “bald” and that continuation of proceedings against the applicant would be futile and a gross misuse of criminal process, the Court held this to be a rare case warranting exercise of its quashing jurisdiction. The petition was allowed and the proceedings were quashed insofar as they concerned the applicant; no interim directions or other liberties were recorded.

Case Details: Case No.: NA528BNSS No. 15904 of 2025 Case Title: Ajay Saini Versus State of U.P. and Another Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Vinod Singh, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Surendra Nath Tripathi, Government Advocate; Anuj Kumar, A.G.A.