False professional identity and lack of forensic evidence render sexual assault prosecution an abuse of process.

The applicant, a government servant, sought the quashment of FIR No. 52/2024 registered at P.S. Belbag for offences under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC.

The prosecutrix (Respondent No. 2) alleged that while representing the applicant as an advocate in a child custody dispute, the applicant established physical relations with her on a false promise of marriage on 15.11.2022, recorded obscene videos for intimidation, and administered intoxicants.

The FIR was lodged on 06.02.2024, following a 15-month delay.

During proceedings, the prosecutrix admitted she was not a practicing advocate, contradicting her written complaint and Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement.

The Court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 [corresponding to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.], which grants the High Court inherent powers to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice.

The Court balanced this with the principle that while courts should not ordinarily conduct a "mini-trial" at this stage, they are duty-bound to intervene if the prosecution is inherently improbable or the foundational facts are demolished by the complainant’s own admissions.

The Court observed that the prosecutrix’s admission—that she was not a practicing advocate—demolished the "genesis of her acquaintance" and the professional pretext under which she claimed to have visited Jabalpur.

This was deemed a material improvement that rendered the foundational version doubtful.

Furthermore, the Court noted the lack of corroboration: the medical report showed no signs of sexual assault, there was no forensic evidence of intoxicants, and no electronic record (obscene videos) was recovered despite investigation.

The Court concluded that the unexplained 15-month delay, coupled with these inconsistencies and the absence of scientific evidence, made the continuation of the trial a misuse of the criminal process.

The Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 52/2024 and the consequential proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 202/2024. The applicant was discharged from the criminal proceedings.