Delhi HC Quashes Rape FIR Against Retired Army Officer, Says False Complaints Tarnish Reputation

The Delhi High Court has quashed a rape case lodged against a retired army officer, observing that the allegations levelled against the 72-year-old were absurd and unsupported by any credible evidence.

In a detailed 22-page judgment, Justice Amit Mahajan observed, “False cases have the effect of tarnishing an individual’s reputation in society and it is the duty of the Court to take into account attending circumstances as well as the material collected during investigation.”

The petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) by Lt Gen Inderjit Singh AVSM VSM (Retd.), challenging an order of a Metropolitan Magistrate dated August 26, 2020.

The order had been passed on a complaint filed by his neighbour under Section 156(3) CrPC, seeking registration of an FIR against him for offences under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC, along with Sections 307, 320, 323, 339, 354, 354A, 354B, 355, 503, 506 and 509 IPC.Acting on this complaint, the magistrate directed the police to register an FIR for attempt to rape and other offences.

The retired officer sought quashing of both the magistrate’s order and FIR registered pursuant to it, arguing that the allegations were false, motivated by personal disputes, and contradicted by the material collected during police inquiries.

The complainant alleged that on April 28, 2020, while she was in a park adjoining their homes, the petitioner followed her, snatched her phone, pounced on her, pressed her breast, tore her clothes, and attempted to rape her. She further claimed he inserted his fingers in her private parts and tried to drag her into his house, but she was saved by her mother’s intervention.

The magistrate, citing the seriousness of the allegations, directed registration of an FIR, questioning why the SHO had conducted a detailed inquiry instead of lodging the case immediately.

Justice Mahajan, however, noted that a detailed inquiry had already been conducted, including examination of residents and eyewitnesses, which found no material to support the allegations. The Court stressed that such material could not be disregarded:

“While the deferring of registration of FIR for carrying out a preliminary enquiry may not be the appropriate course of action, once such an enquiry is done, this Court cannot remain blind to the overarching material found in favour of the petitioner. Even otherwise, the petitioner has also invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court and this Court is not precluded from looking into any material that has been placed on record,” the Court said.

Highlighting inconsistencies in the complainant’s account, the Court said that the medical report of May 2, 2020 showed no external injuries, while videos taken after the incident reflected her clothes in normal condition. Statements of local residents and members of the Resident Welfare Association also failed to corroborate her claims.

Considering this, Justice Mahajan added, “It appears not only improbable but also preposterous for an old man of seventy years of age to have physically assaulted Respondent No.2 in such a manner, torn her clothes and to have inserted his finger in her private parts, in the presence of so many persons including his family members. The absurdity of the allegations alone belies the case of Respondent No.2.”

Finding the allegations “absurd” and unsupported by “a shadow of credible evidence,” the Court ruled that allowing the case to proceed would amount to harassment.

“Considering the aforesaid discussion in relation to the absurd nature of the allegations which are not supported by a shadow of credible evidence, in the opinion of this Court, continuation of proceedings will be an abuse of process of law. Subjecting the petitioner to suffer the tribulations of trial in such circumstances would be tantamount to miscarriage of justice and the same warrants interference by this Court.”

Court thus quashed the magistrate’s order and any FIR registered pursuant to it, noting that a stay had been granted just two days after the impugned order and no FIR appeared to have been formally registered in the intervening period.

"In view of the aforesaid discussion, impugned order as well as FIR, if any, registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj pursuant to the impugned order are quashed," the Court concluded.

For the Petitioner: Mr. Saket Sikri, Mr. Gautam Khazanchi & Ms. Pooja Deepak, Advs.

For the Respondent: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for the State. Mr. Archit Upadhayay (DHCLSC), Adv. for R-2

Case Title: Lt Gen Inderjit Singh AVSM VSM (Retd) v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr

Bench: Justice Amit Mahajan

Judgment Date: 26 September 2025