Case Note

Case Title: Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala & Justice Sandeep Mehta
Date of Judgment: 2 September 2025
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025 (@ SLP (Crl.) No.11642/2019)

Facts

• Respondent No.2 (complainant), a Scheduled Caste student, filed a private complaint on 11.08.2014 before the ACJM, Allahabad, alleging offences committed in 2010.

• Allegations included rape, unnatural sex, abortion without consent, intimidation, casteist remarks, and refusal to marry despite initial promises.

• Offences invoked: Sections 323, 504, 376, 452, 377, 120B IPC and Section 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act.

• The Magistrate took cognizance, conducted an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC, and issued process under Section 376 IPC against the appellant.

• The appellant’s Section 482 CrPC petition before the Allahabad High Court (2019) to quash the proceedings was dismissed.

Procedural History

1. Magistrate (2015): Summoned the appellant for trial under Section 376 IPC.

2. Allahabad High Court (2019): Dismissed appellant’s Section 482 CrPC petition.

3. Supreme Court (2025): Allowed the appeal and quashed the proceedings.

Issues

1. Whether the complaint disclosed a prima facie case justifying the summoning of the appellant.

2. Whether the long delay (4 years) and vague allegations rendered the proceedings an abuse of process.

3. Whether consensual sexual relations under a promise of marriage amounted to rape in the present case.

4. Whether the High Court erred in refusing to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

Arguments

Appellant:

• Complaint was vague, lacked material particulars, and filed after an unexplained delay.

• Relationship was consensual; allegations of rape fabricated after falling out.

• Summoning based on frivolous complaint violated principles laid down in precedents.

Respondent/State:

• Cognizance was taken on a private complaint; State had minimal role.

• High Court was correct in refusing interference.

Judgment

• The Supreme Court held that the complaint did not inspire confidence, being filed after four years without proper explanation.

• Allegations were vague, lacked details of dates/places, and included unnecessary arraignment of the appellant’s parents.

• The complaint appeared to be frivolous and vexatious, amounting to abuse of process.

• The Court emphasized the need for careful scrutiny where consensual relationships are projected as rape under a false promise of marriage.

• Consequently, the SC set aside the High Court’s order and quashed Criminal Case No. 655/2014 pending before ACJM, Allahabad.

Ratio Decidendi

1. Courts must exercise caution in summoning on private complaints, especially in cases involving allegations of rape on a promise of marriage.

2. Delay, vagueness, and lack of independent corroboration undermine the credibility of such complaints.

3. Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised to prevent abuse of process when proceedings are manifestly frivolous or malicious.

Significance

• Reiterates judicial duty to distinguish between rape and consensual sex under failed relationships.

• Strengthens safeguards against misuse of criminal process for vengeance or pressure.

• Provides a structured test for quashing under Section 482 CrPC based on Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor.

Endnotes (Case Law References)

1. Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951 – Duty of courts to closely examine frivolous/vexatious complaints before refusing quashing

2. Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, (2013) Cri LJ 2990 – Distinction between rape and consensual sex under promise of marriage
3. Rajiv Thapar & Ors. v. Madan Lal Kapoor, Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2013 – Four-step test for quashing under Section 482 CrPC

PDF of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025 (@ SLP (Crl.) No.11642/2019) PRADEEP KUMAR KESARWANI vs STATE OF UP