2025 INSC 1143
Crl. App. No…../2025@SLP(Crl)No.3361/2025 Page 1 of 8
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(@Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No. 3361 OF 2025)
SURENDRA KHAWSE …APPELLANT(S)
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
& ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
SANJAY KAROL J,
Leave Granted.
2. Under challenge in this appeal is a judgment and order
dated 27th January 2025 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No.48079
of 2023 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, titled
analogously where the High Court has refused to exercise its
powers under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita,
Crl. App. No…../2025@SLP(Crl)No.3361/2025 Page 2 of 8
20231
seeking quashing of the First Information Report2
and the
chargesheet3
.
3. The brief facts leading to the impugned judgment are that
the complainant, Respondent No.2 herein was a Computer
Operator employed at Suhagi Municipal Corporation where the
appellant-accused was working as Assistant Revenue Inspector
and in the course of regular interactions they became friendly
with one another and such friendship eventually progressed
further. It is important to note here that the complainant at an
earlier point in time was married and had also begotten a son
from the wedlock. This friendship and eventual physical
intimacy turned sour which led to the instant proceedings.
4. The allegation levelled by the complainant against the
Appellant-accused is that when the latter proposed the possibility
of taking their friendship further, she had clearly stated that she
was married and had a son to which he agreed or in other words,
the implications of which he understood and also said that they
would, at one point in future, be joined in matrimony. It is then
alleged that on 15th March 2023 the Appellant-accused called the
complainant to his residence after office hours and forced
intimate relations with her. When she resisted/refused he assured
1 For short ‘BNSS 2023’
2. For short ‘FIR’
3 Dated 07th August 2023, P.S. Adhartaal bearing no.0934/2023 under Sections 376 and
376 (2)(n)IPC
4 Dated 20th October 2023
Crl. App. No…../2025@SLP(Crl)No.3361/2025 Page 3 of 8
her of marriage and asked her not to worry. This situation
continued till 10th April 2023. A few days thereafter, upon being
asked as to why they are yet to get married, the complainant
alleges that the Appellant-accused refused and asked her to marry
someone else. Terming this to be rape on pretext of marriage, the
complainant filed the subject FIR.
5. Certain other facts are also required to be taken note of.
The relationship having soured, the Appellant-accused filed a
complaint under Section 155 Cr.PC4 on 24th April 2023 before
P.S. Adhartaal District-Jabalpur alleging that the complainant
with whom he does not want any relationship or dealing,
repeatedly threatened him saying that she would kill herself and
even on the day of filing of the said complaint, she came to his
residence asking him to speak with her, hurled abuses and also
consumed rat poison. Subsequently, the Appellant-accused also
lodged a complaint with the Municipal Commissioner, Jabalpur
dated 05th July 2023 detailing the alleged harassment by the
complainant to the effect of false implication in cases and stating
that if the harassment continues, he will be forced to commit
suicide. A similar complaint was also submitted to the Divisional
Officer, Nagar Nigam.
6. As a consequence of the said representation, the
complainant was issued a show cause notice dated 6th July 2023
4 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
Crl. App. No…../2025@SLP(Crl)No.3361/2025 Page 4 of 8
where she was asked to rectify her behaviour and submit a
clarification against the allegations within a period of 24 hours.
It was stated therein that should she not furnish such a
clarification, she would be relieved of employment. The
Appellant-accused also submitted a representation to the
Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur, in similar terms as the
representations referred to in the preceding paragraph.
7. It is to be noted that the FIR and chargesheet which are the
subject matter of the instant proceedings, are developments
subsequent to the representations made by the Appellantaccused.
8. The Appellant-accused filed a petition under Section 482,
Cr.PC for quashing of the FIR on 13th October 2023. The police
completed its investigation and presented chargesheet for trial, as
already noted supra.
9. In terms of the impugned judgement dated 27th January
2025, the High Court refused to quash the FIR and charge sheet
observing:
“5. At this stage, it cannot be said that there was false
promise or not. It will be matter of evidence before
the trial Court to decide the same. It will be too early
to quash FIR on the said pretext.
6. Petition is dismissed.”
10. It is in this background that the present case has travelled
up to this Court. We have heard the learned senior counsel,
Mr. Mrigendra Singh, assisted by Ms. Niti Richhariya, learned
Crl. App. No…../2025@SLP(Crl)No.3361/2025 Page 5 of 8
Advocate-on-Record for the Appellant-accused and Mr.
Bhupendra Pratap Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General for
the State, assisted by Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, learned Advocate
on Record.
11. Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 reads:-
“528. Saving of inherent powers of High Court.—Nothing in
this Sanhita shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent
powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be
necessary to give effect to any order under this Sanhita, or to
prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice.”
12. The exercise of the powers under Section 482, Cr.PC
which corresponds to Section 528, BNSS have been repeatedly
detailed in various judgments. We need not do so once more.
Suffice it to refer to what is arguably the most famous judgment
i.e., State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal5
and its recent reiteration in
M. Srikanth v. State of Telangana6
, and Balaji Traders v. State
of U.P.7
.
13. As apparent from the record, the Appellant-accused and
the complainant had been colleagues for the past 5 years and it is
somewhere during this time that their relationship progressed.
We notice once again that the Appellant-accused had initiated
legal processes/administrative processes against the complainant
much prior to the subject FIR being lodged. These included a
5 1992 Supp (1) 335
6
(2019) 10 SCC 373
7 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1314
Crl. App. No…../2025@SLP(Crl)No.3361/2025 Page 6 of 8
show-cause notice issued by the employer regarding her
continued acrimonious behaviour against the Appellant- accused,
with the ultimatum that should she not respond to the notice with
the requisite clarification, she would be relieved of her
employment. It is only thereafter that the subject FIR was lodged.
Further, the same was lodged four months after the alleged
incident of forced sexual intercourse with the complainant. 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 Appellantaccused 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.
14. One of the factors mentioned in Bhajan Lal (supra)
justifying the quashing of criminal proceedings is when the same
is initiated in pursuance of ulterior motives. It reads as under:
Crl. App. No…../2025@SLP(Crl)No.3361/2025 Page 7 of 8
“(7) 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.”
Reference to Mohd. Wajid v. State of U.P.
8
, would also be
appropriate. It was held:
“36. At this stage, we would like to observe something important.
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.
37. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed
against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal
vengeance, etc. then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is
very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The
complainant would ensure that the averments made in the
FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary
ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not
be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in
the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether
the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are
disclosed or not.
38. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty
to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from
the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need
be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the
lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section
482CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself
only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account
the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of
the case as well as the materials collected in the course of
investigation…”
(emphasis supplied)
8
(2023) 20 SCC 219
Crl. App. No…../2025@SLP(Crl)No.3361/2025 Page 8 of 8
15. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that
the FIR and the chargesheet against the Appellant-accused
ought to be quashed. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid
terms. The judgment and order passed by the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh with particulars as mentioned in paragraph 2,
is set aside.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.
……………………………………………..J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
………………………………………………J.
(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)
New Delhi;
September 22, 2025
