Inconsistent allegations and unexplained six-month delay in matrimonial disputes warrant quashing FIR to prevent abuse of process.

The petitioners (husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law) sought quashment of FIR No. 378/2023 registered for offences under Sections 376, 377, 506, and 34 of the IPC.

The prosecutrix alleged that on 25.03.2023, while at her parental home in Gwalior, her father-in-law raped her, her husband committed unnatural sex, and her mother-in-law assisted by restraining her.

The FIR was lodged on 24.09.2023, following a six-month delay.

Subsequently, a second FIR (No. 468/2023) was filed under Section 498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, alleging a demand for dowry on the exact same date (25.03.2023) but omitting any mention of the sexual assault or the first FIR.

Charges were framed on 13.12.2024, notably excluding Section 377 IPC.

1. Whether the inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS (Section 482 CrPC) should be exercised to quash criminal proceedings when allegations appear inherently improbable and attended with mala fides.

2. Whether the unexplained delay in filing the FIR and the existence of mutually inconsistent versions of the same incident constitute an abuse of the process of law.

The Court applied the landmark principles from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which allow for the exercise of inherent powers to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.

It relied on Mohammad Wajid v. State of Uttar Pradesh, emphasizing that the court must look beyond surface allegations to identify frivolous or vexatious proceedings.

Furthermore, it cited Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate regarding the seriousness of summoning an accused.

It cited Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, which cautions against roping in matrimonial relatives through vague and omnibus allegations.

The Court observed that the six-month delay in reporting a grave offence like rape was unexplained, especially since the prosecutrix continued to reside with the accused in the matrimonial home post-incident.

The Court found a fatal contradiction between the two FIRs: in the first, the prosecutrix alleged sexual assault on 25.03.2023, whereas in the second, she alleged a dowry demand on the same date and place without mentioning the assault.

This inconsistency, coupled with the omission of Section 377 from the framed charges, indicated that the allegations were "materially inconsistent and improved versions".

The Court determined that the conduct of the respondent was highly unnatural and that the criminal machinery was set in motion with mala fide intent to exert pressure during a matrimonial dispute.

The Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 378/2023 of P.S. University, Gwalior, along with all consequential criminal proceedings against the petitioners.