Rape FIR quashed where evidence indicated a consensual relationship and retaliatory complaint following alleged financial fraud.

The applicant, a practicing doctor running a hospital at Vyara, sought quashing of FIR No. 11824001241267 of 2024 registered at Vyara Police Station for offences under Sections 376(2), 376E, 354A(1)(i), 377, 511 and 504 of the IPC and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, along with the consequential chargesheet and Sessions Case No. 10 of 2025.

The first informant was employed at the applicant’s hospital. The prosecution alleged that the applicant made sexual advances towards her, sent sexually coloured messages, and forcibly established physical relations with her in January 2023.

The applicant contended that the allegations were fabricated after the first informant was removed from employment for alleged financial irregularities.

The applicant’s wife had lodged a complaint and subsequently an FIR alleging that the first informant and another employee had defrauded the hospital of approximately ₹3,26,15,000; the first informant thereafter approached the police and filed a private complaint, culminating in the impugned FIR dated 12 July 2024.

The applicant further relied on the parties’ social-media communications, photographs, continued employment of the first informant, and witness statements recorded during investigation to contend that the relationship was consensual and that the FIR was a counterblast.

The High Court had earlier granted interim protection against coercive steps on 30 September 2024. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with that order on 7 March 2025 and requested expeditious disposal of the petition.

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR and the material collected during investigation disclosed a non-consensual sexual relationship or otherwise made out the alleged offences against the applicant.

2. Whether the FIR was liable to be quashed as a delayed and motivated counterblast to the criminal proceedings initiated against the first informant for alleged financial fraud.

3. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to quash the FIR, chargesheet and consequential Sessions Case.

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to consider whether continuation of the criminal proceedings would be justified.

The allegations invoked Sections 376(2), 376E, 354A(1)(i), 377, 511 and 504 of the IPC, and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2008.

The Court relied on the principles governing quashing of criminal proceedings, including those stated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, and the other authorities cited by the applicant, including Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, Jothiragawan v. State, Samadhan S/o Sitatram Manmothe v. State of Maharashtra, Shiv Pratap Singh Rana v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Surendra Khawse v. State of Madhya Pradesh.

The Court also applied the principle that the question whether the alleged sexual relationship was consensual must be assessed from the material collected during investigation where the prosecution record itself does not support the allegation of force or absence of consent.

The Court examined the investigation record and found no material showing that the first informant had disclosed the alleged January 2023 incident to colleagues, family members or any person in confidence.

It considered her continued employment at the hospital after the alleged incident and her participation in photographs and celebrations connected with the applicant’s family or hospital.

The Court also relied on the social-media chats, observing that the first informant had not objected to the applicant’s sexually coloured messages and had replied to some of them in a similar tone; it further noted that she had repeatedly gone to a particular hospital room when called by the applicant.

On this material, the Court inferred that the relationship was consensual and that the allegation of force or absence of consent was not supported.

The applicant’s wife had submitted a complaint concerning alleged financial fraud on 17 June 2024 and an FIR was registered on 8 July 2024, while the first informant approached the police on 29 June 2024 and filed a private complaint on 8 July 2024, followed by registration of the impugned FIR on 12 July 2024.

In the Court’s view, the surrounding circumstances, including the first informant’s prior removal from employment for alleged financial irregularities, supported the applicant’s contention that the sexual-offence FIR was motivated.

Accordingly, continuation of the prosecution was held to be unwarranted.

The Rule was made absolute.