[This Article is authored by Arundhathi Ram, a 5th year student from Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar]

Introduction

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr marks a significant development in Indian criminal jurisprudence. Hearing an appeal from the Allahabad High Court’s refusal to quash a summoning order, the Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta clarified the legal threshold for drawing the line between consensual sexual relationships from those relationships vitiated by a false promise of marriage. While doing so, the Court highlighted that a breach of promise without a mala fide intention, does not amount to rape. Equally noteworthy, the Division Bench formulated a four-step test for High Courts to consider while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”), now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), thereby refining the doctrine of quashment to prevent abuse of process.

Facts

In August 2014, the second respondent filed a private complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, alleging that back in 2010, the Appellant, Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani, had raped her under a false promise of marriage. According to her complaint, there were also allegations of coercion through compromising video, forced abortion, and caste-based abuse. The complaint invoked Sections 323, 504, 376, 452, 377 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (“IPC”) and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“the Atrocities Act”).

Following the filing of the complaint was under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, the Magistrate decided not to refer the matter to the police for investigation. Instead, the Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint, decided to look into the matter directly under Section 202 of the CrPC. Upon completion of this magisterial inquiry, proceedings as prescribed for rape under Section 376 of the IPC were initiated against the appellant. The appellant expressed dissatisfaction with the summoning order passed and sought for quashing of criminal proceedings before the Allahabad High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC. However, the Allahabad High Court declined to intervene, upheld the proceedings and rejected the appellant’s plea. This judicial stance compelled the appellant to take up the matter before the Supreme Court.

Issues

• To what extent do the allegations presented by the Complainant satisfy the legal criteria for rape under the pretext of false promise to marry, considering the intricacies of consent obtained through deception?
• To what extent did the High Court fail to exercise its inherent authority under Section 482 of the CrPC when it refused to set aside the criminal proceedings?

Judgment

The Supreme Court observed that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate erred in issuing the summons order and that the High Court overlooked some key factors when it refused to interfere and set aside the judicial proceedings initiated by the magistrate. The Court explored beyond the procedural lapses and engaged in a critical examination of the credibility of the complaint. The Court also questioned the credibility of the complaint due to the delay of four years in filing the complaint, the lack of independent proof to support various allegations against the appellant, and lack of important details such as the exact date and location of the alleged incident.

The Bench observed that summoning of an accused on a frivolous complaint has its adverse impact, capable of tarnishing their reputation. Therefore, it is all the more necessary for the Court to scrutinize and be vigilant of such complaints. Citing Mohammad Wajid vs State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court held that the judges must explore beyond the pleadings and examine surrounding facts and circumstances to find out about any abuse of process. Emphasizing the difference so far as the crime of rape and consensual sexual intercourse are concerned, the Court held that a mere failure to fulfil a commitment to marry without any fraudulent or mala fide intention from the very beginning does not in itself constitute a crime of rape. However, when there is an act by the accused which involves taking advantage or exploiting the victim with a clear and demonstrable wrongful intention, it leads to criminal liability.

Accordingly, the Court highlighted the significance of finding out if the accused intentionally misrepresented his willingness to marry and whether the victim’s consent was given with full knowledge of the nature and implications of the sexual relationship. The Court considered the possibilities of a woman consenting to sexual intercourse out of genuine love or emotional connection, rather than being misrepresented or misled due to false assurances by the accused, and when such unforeseen situations arise where the parties might not be able to fulfil the promise to marry, the Court held that the complaint should be assessed through a different lens. A conviction for rape is justified only when there exists evidence showing mala fide intention and ulterior motives on the part of the accused from the very beginning. This reasoning prompted the court to establish the four-step framework for determining petitions under Section 482 of the CrPC.

The Division Bench set out these four steps that High Courts should generally follow when deciding whether to set aside criminal litigation under Section 482 of the CrPC. This framework provides a clear structure for assessing the validity of petitions seeking to quash the criminal proceedings:

1. Firstly, the Court should determine whether the materials produced by the accused are of unquestionable authenticity and reliability. Such evidentiary materials should be of sterling quality that can reasonably be relied upon.
2. Next, the Court must consider whether this evidentiary material effectively addresses and discredits the allegations made in the complaint. The evidentiary material should fail to gain credibility in the eyes of a reasonable prudent observer; therefore, it should be rejected, rendering the charges untenable.
3. Next, the Court should also examine whether the prosecution or complainant has refuted this material, or whether it is of a nature that cannot reasonably be disputed.
4. Finally, the Court must consider whether allowing the prosecution to proceed would amount to an abuse of judicial process and whether such continuation would fail to serve the interests of justice.

The Court emphasised that when all the Fourth-Steps are satisfied, the High Court, guided by its judicial conscience and exercising its inherent power under Section 482, ought to quash the criminal proceedings. Such action not only ensures justice for the accused but also preserves valuable court time that would otherwise be spent on a trial unlikely to result in conviction.

Lastly, the Court held that the Complainant’s failure to respond to the notice reflected a lack of seriousness of the matter from the outset. Considering this, allowing the case to proceed further would be misuse of the legal process and an injustice to the accused and his family. In such situations, the Court noted that the High Court is expected to exercise its inherent authority as vested under Section 482 of the CrPC to dismiss the proceedings and prevent injustice.

Analysis

The Four-Step test builds on the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, where the Court identified seven illustrative categories as a guide to high courts while exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. These included instances where the allegations did not disclose any offence, even if taken at face value, where the allegations failed to reveal a cognisable offence warranting investigation, where the allegations made and the evidence collected did not reveal commission of an offence, where the allegations were pointing towards a non-cognizable offence and the police cannot conduct an investigation without prior authorization from a magistrate, where the allegations were clearly unreasonable or extremely unlikely to be true, where the statutory provisions expressly prohibit prosecution or provide for an alternative remedy, and where there was a mala fide or personal vendetta behind filing the complaint. The Court exercised caution in stating that there should not be a rigid formula to be applied during quashment; this case nonetheless provided a benchmark for preventing misuse of process and safeguarding justice. However, its open-endedness, leaving wide discretion to High Courts, led to inconsistent application of law with cases having similar factual matrices resulting in different outcomes across jurisdictions.

Subsequently, the Court in Rajiv Thapar vs Madan Lal Kapoor sought for a greater precision by introducing  “sterling and impeccable quality” evidence when considering any evidence or documents submitted by the accused in his defense. This marks a shift from Bhajan Lal’s wider discretionary approach towards a focus on evidentiary reliability.

However, unlike Rajiv Thapar, which focused primarily on the credibility of evidentiary material relied upon by the defence, Pradeep Kesarwani highlights the broader concern and challenges in safeguarding the accused against frivolous or malicious prosecution in cases involving non-fulfilment of a promise to marry. Kesarwani consolidates and clarifies the law on quashment, offering a structured test and a normative lens through which High Courts can scrutinise potential misuse of criminal proceedings.

The real implications of this legal test can be seen in the case of Mohammed Wajid vs State of U.P., where the Court made it clear that the judges should not just looking into the allegations set out in the FIR or complaint at face value to see whether an offence has been committed but also should look into surrounding circumstances. The court held that the inherent powers vested under Section 482 of the CrPC and Article 226 allow it to examine the case from a very early stage, considering the factors and events leading up to the initiation of the case and filing of the complaint, allowing it to examine all the details and evidence gathered during course of investigation.  

However, the success of Pradeep Kesarwani case would depend on judicial sensitivity. In sexual offence cases, there is a thin line drawn between breach of fulfilment of a promise to marry and a deliberate wrongful intention. The overemphasis by courts on “impeccable” evidence at a preliminary stage risks genuine grievances going unheard.

Conclusion

This decision highlights the importance of judicial scrutiny when hearing petitions to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of CrPC. By establishing the four-step framework, the Supreme Court provides High Courts with a streamlined approach to assess the validity of prayers made by the accused, ensuring that such inherent powers vested with the High Courts are exercised judiciously and cautiously to prevent misuse of legal process. This judgement reflects the judiciary’s commitment to uphold justice against malicious litigation.