FIR alleging rape on the pretext of marriage should be quashed under Section 528 BNSS (equivalent to Section 482 CrPC) because the circumstances indicated that the criminal proceedings were mala fide and instituted for vengeance.
Case Note
Surendra Khawse v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2025 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 3361 of 2025)
Decided on: 22 September 2025
Coram: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Headnote
Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Allegation of rape on pretext of marriage – Delay in lodging FIR – Prior complaints by accused against complainant – FIR lodged after issuance of show-cause notice threatening employment termination – Held: FIR appeared to be mala fide, lodged as an afterthought to avenge consequences of workplace complaints. Criminal proceedings quashed under Section 528, Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC).
Facts
-
The complainant, a computer operator, alleged that the appellant–Assistant Revenue Inspector at Suhagi Municipal Corporation forced sexual relations on the assurance of marriage (March–April 2023).
-
When the appellant later refused to marry, the complainant lodged an FIR under Sections 376 and 376(2)(n) IPC.
-
The appellant had earlier filed complaints (April–July 2023) against the complainant for harassment, including threats of suicide and consuming poison at his residence. He also petitioned the Municipal Commissioner, leading to a show-cause notice to the complainant threatening her employment.
-
The FIR was lodged after these complaints and notices, raising questions of motive.
-
The Madhya Pradesh High Court (27 January 2025) refused to quash the FIR, holding that the truth of the promise of marriage was a matter for trial.
Issues
-
Whether the FIR alleging rape on the pretext of marriage should be quashed under Section 528 BNSS (equivalent to Section 482 CrPC).
-
Whether the circumstances indicated that the criminal proceedings were mala fide and instituted for vengeance.
Reasoning
-
The Supreme Court reiterated the principle from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal that courts may quash proceedings if they are manifestly attended with mala fide or filed with ulterior motives for vengeance.
-
The Court emphasized that delay in lodging the FIR (four months after the alleged incident) and its timing—only after issuance of a show-cause notice—suggested that the complaint was retaliatory.
-
Referring to Mohd. Wajid v. State of U.P., the Court held that in cases of suspected mala fide FIRs, courts must look beyond the allegations in the FIR to the attending circumstances and overall record.
-
The Court found that the complainant’s conduct and the sequence of events pointed towards an “afterthought” complaint rather than a genuine grievance.
Holding
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the FIR and chargesheet against the appellant. The High Court’s refusal to exercise inherent powers was set aside.
Endnotes (Case Law Cited)
-
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 – Guidelines on quashing FIRs in cases of mala fide or vexatious prosecution.
-
M. Srikanth v. State of Telangana, (2019) 10 SCC 373 – Reaffirmation of Bhajan Lal principles in quashing petitions.
-
Balaji Traders v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1314 – Scope of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS.
-
Mohd. Wajid v. State of U.P., (2023) 20 SCC 219 – Duty of courts to carefully scrutinize FIRs where allegations appear retaliatory or mala fide.
Download PDF of judgement in Surendra Khawse v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. Surendra Khawse vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Supreme Court)