Criminal Proceedings Maliciously Instituted With Ulterior Motive Liable To Be Quashed: Supreme Court
The Apex Court held that the criminal proceedings that are manifestly instituted as a vehicle for vengeance based on an afterthought, warrant a closer look and are liable to be quashed.
The Supreme Court quashed an FIR and subsequent chargesheet, holding that the criminal proceedings in the matter were initiated with the object of wreaking personal vengeance, emphasising that when proceedings are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, such proceedings are liable to be quashed.
The Apex Court was hearing an appeal filed against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had dismissed the appellant’s petition seeking quashing of the FIR and chargesheet under Section 376 IPC, observing that it was premature to intervene at that stage.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh quashed the FIR citing State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal in which the Supreme Court had held that, “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 FIR and chargesheet ought to be quashed.
Senior Advocate Mrigendra Singh appeared for the appellant-accused, while Bhupendra Pratap Singh, Deputy Advocate General, represented the State.
Background
The complainant had developed a friendship with the appellant-accused, who was her co-worker. Their relationship eventually became intimate. The complainant alleged that the appellant later refused to marry her after initially assuring her of matrimony, and lodged an FIR accusing him of rape on the pretext of marriage.
The appellant, however, had filed multiple complaints before the registration of the FIR, alleging harassment by the complainant. He claimed that she repeatedly threatened him, once attempted to consume poison at his residence, and continued to create disturbances. Based on his representation, a show-cause notice had been issued to the complainant by her employer, warning of termination of her employment. It was after these developments that the FIR was lodged.
Court’s Observations
The Bench referred to Mohd. Wajid vs The State of U.P in which the Apex Court had ruled that “…whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely.”
The Bench noted that, in the case at hand, the FIR was filed nearly four months after the alleged incident, and only after administrative proceedings against the complainant had commenced. While making these observations, the Bench remarked that the sequence of events raised doubts about the genuineness of the allegations, observing that “the subject FIR was only lodged after the issuance of show-cause notice, which obviously has large real-world implications insofar as the complainant is concerned, leaves open a gaping possibility that the same was lodged as an afterthought and was a vehicle for vengeance for the impending consequences described above.”
Conclusion
Setting aside the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the Supreme Court accordingly quashed the FIR and chargesheet against the appellant.
Cause Title: XYZ vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1143)
Appearances
Appellant: Senior Advocate Mrigendra Singh with Advocate Niti Richhariya
Respondents: Bhupendra Pratap Singh, Deputy Advocate General, with Advocate Mrinal Gopal Elker