'Vehicle For Vengeance' : Supreme Court Quashes Case Lodged By Woman Accusing Her Colleague Of Rape On False Marriage Promise

The Supreme Court recently quashed a chargesheet lleging rape on the pretext of marriage, holding that the criminal proceedings were instituted as an afterthought and with an ulterior motive.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh set aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that had refused to quash the proceedings, and observed that the FIR was filed only after the complainant was served with a show-cause notice by her employer, following representations made by the accused.

The case arose from allegations made by a woman employee of a Municipal Corporation, who worked as a Computer Operator, against her colleague, an Assistant Revenue Inspector, with whom she had been friendly for five years. The complainant, despite being married and having a son, entered into a physical relationship with the accused after assurances of marriage. She alleged that on 15 March 2023, the accused forced sexual relations with her on the promise of marriage, which continued till April 2023. When she later asked about marriage, he allegedly refused and asked her to marry someone else, leading her to file an FIR under Sections 376 and 376(2)(n) IPC.

However, the accused had, prior to the FIR, filed multiple complaints against the complainant, alleging harassment, including threats of suicide and abuse. He had also lodged representations before municipal and police authorities, following which the complainant was issued a show-cause notice on 6 July 2023, warning that she could be relieved of employment if her conduct did not improve. The FIR came four months after the alleged incident and only after these administrative steps were initiated.

Noting these circumstances, the Supreme Court observed that the fact that the FIR was only lodged after the issuance of show-cause notice leaves open a gaping possibility that the same was lodged as an "afterthought and was a vehicle for vengeance for the impending consequences.”

Invoking the principle laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), the Court reiterated that criminal proceedings can be quashed if instituted with mala fides or an ulterior motive. It also cited Mohd. Wajid v. State of U.P. (2023), emphasising that in cases of potentially vexatious prosecution, courts must look beyond the FIR and examine the surrounding circumstances.

"If the description of the offence is taken at face value, right at the first instance, the complainant was not willing and was persuaded to engage in relations on the assurance of eventual marriage between the parties. When she enquired as to when the same would take place, a few days later, allegedly, the Appellant accused refused and asked her to marry someone else. That would be the first occasion when, having realized that she had been taken advantage of the complainant should have taken the requisite action. Even if that was not done so, the fact 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."

Finding that this was a case where criminal proceedings were initiated with an ulterior motive, the Court quashed the FIR and the chargesheet.

Case Details: SURENDRA KHAWSE v STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 968

Click Here To Read Order

Appearances: Senior Advocate Mrigendra Singh, assisted by Advocate on Record Niti Richhariya (for Appellant-accused) and Deputy Advocate General for State of Madhya Pradesh, Bhupendra Singh assisted by Advocate on Record Mrinal Gopal Elker (for State)