Published on: 13 September, 2025 17:38 IST
In a landmark ruling that could reshape the way High Courts across the country handle criminal cases, the Supreme Court has laid down a structured four-step test for deciding petitions to quash criminal proceedings. The judgment came in the case of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., where the Court quashed a four-year-old complaint alleging rape on the false promise of marriage.
The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta, who emphasized that frivolous and malicious complaints not only waste the time of the judiciary but also cause severe damage to the reputation of the accused.
The Case in Focus
The case dates back to 2014 when a woman filed a private complaint before a Magistrate in Allahabad. She alleged that the accused, whom she met during coaching classes in 2010, had engaged in sexual relations with her on the false pretext of marriage. The complaint also accused him of:
- Blackmail by recording objectionable videos,
- Forcing her to undergo an abortion in 2011,
- Using caste-based insults with the support of his family when she pressed for marriage.
The charges invoked were serious, including offences under Sections 323, 504, 376, 452, 377, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, as well as provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
After an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC, the Magistrate summoned the accused. However, the accused challenged the summons before the Allahabad High Court in 2019, calling the complaint abusive of the legal process and pointing out the four-year delay. The High Court dismissed his plea, forcing him to approach the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court expressed concern over how easy it has become to drag individuals into prolonged criminal trials based on weak or exaggerated allegations. It noted that:
- Frivolous Complaints Harm Reputations: Summoning someone without solid evidence can tarnish their reputation permanently.
- Abuse of Process: Continuing a doubtful case robs the courts of valuable time.
- Weak Complaint: The woman’s complaint lacked critical details of time, place, and circumstances. It was not supported by independent evidence.
- Conduct of Complainant: The complainant even failed to respond to a Supreme Court notice, hinting at a lack of seriousness.
- Dragging Parents: The inclusion of the accused’s parents in the case was described as harassment.
The Court stressed that in cases involving allegations of rape on the pretext of marriage, judges must carefully distinguish between a genuine case of deception and situations where a consensual relationship ends due to real-life circumstances.
The Four-Step Test Laid Down
In what experts are calling a “game-changing move,” the Supreme Court created a structured framework for High Courts to use when deciding whether to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS).
The test requires four questions to be asked in sequence:
- Quality of Evidence: Is the material relied on by the accused impeccable, reliable, and beyond doubt?
- Impact on Allegations: Does this material negate the factual core of the complaint, making the allegations unsustainable?
- Refutability: Has the prosecution been able to effectively counter this material, or is the refutation weak?
- Ends of Justice: Would allowing the trial to continue amount to abuse of court process and injustice?
Only if the answer to all four is yes, proceedings may be quashed.
Until now, courts relied on broader, more subjective principles like “abuse of process” or “ends of justice.” The new four-step approach brings:
- Structure: A clear checklist for judges to apply consistently.
- Higher Evidentiary Bar: Accused must show unimpeachable evidence, not self-serving claims.
- Balanced Protection: Genuine complainants remain protected while innocent citizens are safe from harassment.
- Predictability: Lawyers and litigants can better assess the strength of quashing petitions in advance.
The ruling builds upon earlier precedents such as State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) and Kim Wansoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) but takes the jurisprudence further by consolidating principles into an actionable framework.
Criticism of High Court Approach
The Supreme Court also faulted the Allahabad High Court’s 2019 decision for not properly evaluating the credibility of the complaint. This failure, the Bench said, unnecessarily subjected the accused to years of trial and mental distress.
Representation in Court
- For the Accused: Senior Advocate Rahul Kaushik, assisted by Bibek Tripathi, Y Lokesh, Sudhakar Tiwari, Ajay Kumar Shrivastav, Mohit Kumar Gupta, and Akshat Srivastava.
- For the Respondents: Advocates Adarsh Upadhyay, Pooja Singh, Pallavi Kumari, and Shashank Pachauri.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. is being seen as a watershed in criminal law. By quashing a dubious rape case and setting out the four-step test, the Court has struck a careful balance: preventing the misuse of criminal law while ensuring genuine cases of sexual exploitation are pursued with seriousness.
This precedent is expected to guide High Courts across India in weeding out false, frivolous, or vexatious prosecutions, preventing the criminal justice system from being misused as a tool for personal vendetta.