SC Quashes Rape Complaint Filed After 4 Years, Explains When Promise of Marriage Is Not Rape

The Supreme Court has once again underlined the misuse of criminal law in cases involving allegations of rape on the promise of marriage. The Court quashed summons issued against a man after finding that the complaint filed against him was both frivolous and vexatious, and that continuing the proceedings would amount to gross abuse of law.

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta dealt with the case of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani, who was accused by a woman in 2014 of repeatedly raping her since 2010 on the pretext of marriage. The Court found that the complaint, filed after a delay of four years, lacked essential particulars and was not supported by independent evidence.

Summoning on false allegations is a serious matter

The Court came down strongly on the lower courts that had allowed the complaint to proceed. It said summoning a person based on frivolous allegations is a very serious matter because it tarnishes reputation and drags the accused into needless litigation.

“Summoning any person on the basis of frivolous or vexatious complaints is very serious, as it tarnishes the image of the person against whom false allegations are levelled,” the bench observed.

The Court explained that in cases where allegations of rape are made on the promise of marriage, judges must carefully examine the intention behind the promise. If the promise was genuine but the relationship later failed, the matter falls outside the definition of rape. Only when a promise is made with mala fide intent and deceit, with the objective of exploiting the woman, can the law treat it as rape or cheating, court said.

Complaint riddled with defects

The bench listed several reasons why the complaint could not stand legal scrutiny:

• The woman filed the complaint after four years without providing any explanation for the delay.

• The allegations were vague, missing dates, places, or details of the alleged offences.

• Even the accused’s parents were made parties, along with unrelated charges, suggesting the complaint was vindictive.

• No independent evidence was produced to support the allegations.

The Court also took note of the fact that the complainant declined to accept notice issued by the Supreme Court. According to the bench, this indicated that she was not serious from the beginning and further weakened the credibility of her case.

Lower courts in error

The Supreme Court held that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate erred in issuing summons and that the Allahabad High Court too failed to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

“The Magistrate committed an error in passing the summoning order. The High Court too overlooked relevant aspects while rejecting the Section 482 application,” the bench said.

The Court reiterated that High Courts must intervene to prevent misuse of the criminal process when complaints are manifestly frivolous, malicious, or aimed at wreaking vengeance.

Reliance on past precedents

In its ruling, the Court cited several important precedents. These included Mohammad Wajid v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023), which discussed the role of courts in quashing false proceedings, Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013), which clarified the distinction between consensual sex and rape on false promise of marriage, and Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013), which laid down guiding principles for quashing.

Four-step test for quashing

The bench reiterated the four-step test from Rajiv Thapar to decide whether a case should be quashed:

1. Whether the material relied on by the accused is credible, reasonable and of impeccable quality.

2. Whether it completely rules out the allegations in the complaint.

3. Whether it has not been, or cannot be, refuted by the complainant.

4. Whether continuing the proceedings would amount to abuse of process and fail to serve the ends of justice.

If all four conditions are satisfied, the High Court must quash the proceedings.

Abuse of judicial time

The Court expressed concern about wastage of judicial time on complaints that cannot result in conviction. It said such cases not only harm the accused but also overburden courts.

“Such trials waste precious court time, especially when it is clear they cannot end in conviction,” the bench said.

Finally, the Court quashed the complaint against Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani, describing it as harassment and gross abuse of law.

Case Title: Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Vs The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr

Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta

Judgment Date: September 2, 2025