New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday quashed a rape case filed by a Dalit student of Allahabad University against Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani, observing that the complaint had been lodged four years after the alleged incident and amounted to an abuse of the legal process.
A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta delivered the verdict while allowing Kesarwani’s appeal against an Allahabad High Court order that had earlier refused to quash the summoning order passed by the trial court.
Kesarwani had argued before the apex court that the complaint was filed in 2014, nearly four years after the alleged incident. He maintained that the charges of rape and offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were fabricated and were made only after a consensual relationship between him and the complainant turned sour.
The bench noted that the complainant had shown a lack of seriousness in pursuing the case. “We are of the view that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate committed an error in passing the summoning order. The high court too overlooked the relevant aspects of the matter while rejecting the Section 482 (CrPC) application. On a plain reading of the complaint, more particularly considering the nature of the allegations, the same does not inspire confidence. There is no good explanation why it took four years for the complainant to approach the court,” the Supreme Court observed.
The court also took note of the fact that the complainant did not accept the notice issued by the apex court, further indicating her unwillingness to seriously pursue the matter. Terming the continuation of proceedings as “gross abuse of the process of law,” the bench set aside the orders of both the high court and the trial court.
Importantly, the Supreme Court laid down fresh guidelines for high courts to deal with such cases under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The bench said that high courts must carefully examine whether the material presented by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable; whether it effectively rules out the allegations; whether it remains unrefuted by the complainant or prosecution; and whether continuing with the trial would amount to an abuse of judicial process.
“If the answers to all these questions are in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the high court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings,” the bench said.
