The Supreme Court, invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS, quashed the FIR and chargesheet. It ruled that criminal proceedings manifestly attended with mala fide and initiated with an ulterior motive for vengeance after prior complaints against the complainant constitute a clear abuse of the legal process.
Facts Of The Case:
The case involved the appellant, Surendra Khawse, and the complainant, who were colleagues at a municipal corporation. Their friendly relationship progressed into a consensual physical intimacy. The complainant, who was previously married and had a son, alleged that the appellant had sexual relations with her on multiple occasions between March 15 and April 10, 2023, based on a false promise of marriage. She claimed that when she later inquired about marriage, he refused and asked her to marry someone else, leading her to file an FIR for rape.Crucially, before the FIR was lodged, the relationship had soured, prompting the appellant to file a police complaint and a harassment grievance with their municipal employer. This resulted in the complainant receiving a show-cause notice on July 6, 2023, threatening her job. The subject FIR was filed only after this disciplinary action was initiated against her. The Supreme Court found the timing highly suspect, creating a “gaping possibility” that the FIR was a malicious afterthought for vengeance, rather than a bona fide legal complaint.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of the case began with the filing of a First Information Report (FIR) and a subsequent chargesheet against the appellant for offences under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant then approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash these proceedings. The High Court, however, refused to intervene, dismissing the petition and stating that the question of a “false promise” was a matter for trial. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted leave, heard the appeal, and ultimately set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, allowing the appeal and quashing the FIR and chargesheet.
READ ALSO:Transparency in Football: Supreme Court Upholds Key Reforms for AIFF, Applies BCCI-Like Principles
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made several critical observations while quashing the proceedings. It noted that the appellant had initiated legal and administrative complaints against the complainant much prior to the lodging of the FIR, which had led to a show-cause notice threatening her employment. The Court found it significant that the FIR was registered only after this disciplinary action, creating a “gaping possibility” that it was lodged as a vindictive “afterthought” and a “vehicle for vengeance.” Applying the principles from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court concluded that the proceedings were manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance, constituting a clear abuse of the process of the court.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. In its final decision, the Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC) to quash the FIR and the chargesheet filed against the appellant-accused. The Court held that the criminal proceedings were maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, especially since they were initiated only after the accused had lodged complaints that led to disciplinary action against the complainant. Ruling that this constituted a clear abuse of the legal process, the Court secured the ends of justice by terminating the prosecution.
Case Details:
Case Title: Surendra Khawse vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. Criminal/Civil Appeal No.: (@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3361 of 2025) Date of Judgement: September 22, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Download The Judgement Here