Section 482 permits quashing delayed sexual-offence allegations appearing retaliatory where continuation constitutes abuse of process.

The applicant sought quashing of FIR C.R. No. I-40 of 2014, registered at Kalol City Police Station, Gandhinagar, for offences under Sections 376, 377 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The complainant alleged that she had borrowed ₹50,000 from the applicant in 2006 and that, in 2012, he demanded ₹3,00,000 and threatened to kill her only son unless she submitted to a physical relationship. It was further alleged that the applicant recorded and repeated the acts

The applicant contended that he was a longstanding family friend and had acted as a mediator after the complainant’s shop was sold to a person known to him. He alleged that the FIR was lodged in retaliation for the complainant’s failure to vacate the shop and the purchaser’s efforts to obtain possession

The alleged incident occurred in May 2012, whereas the FIR was lodged on 12 April 2014. During investigation, statements of the complainant under Section 164 CrPC and of her husband were recorded.

1. Whether the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings disclosed a prima facie case warranting continuation of prosecution for offences under Sections 376, 377 and 506(2) IPC, or whether they were liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC

2. Whether the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the prior relationship between the parties, the property-possession dispute, the earlier similar complaint, and the circumstances emerging from the husband’s statement rendered the prosecution an abuse of the process of law

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which may be invoked to prevent abuse of the process of court and to secure the ends of justice.

The FIR alleged offences under Sections 376, 377 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Court applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, under which criminal proceedings may be quashed in appropriate cases where continuation of the prosecution would constitute an abuse of process or where the allegations do not justify proceeding against the accused.

The Court considered the nearly two-year delay between the alleged incident and registration of the FIR, noting that the complainant’s explanation that the applicant was “headstrong” did not satisfactorily account for the delay, particularly because the parties had maintained cordial relations and travelled together.

The Court also treated the earlier complaint involving similar allegations and the subsequent settlement as relevant to assessing the relationship and antecedents of the parties. The property dispute was considered material because the FIR followed the sale of the complainant’s shop and the applicant’s alleged role as mediator in securing possession for the purchaser.

Further, the Court found the husband’s account and his alleged failure to resist or intervene while witnessing the incident difficult to accept, thereby raising serious doubt regarding the prosecution version.

On the cumulative assessment of these circumstances, the Court concluded that the FIR appeared to be an afterthought intended to obstruct the applicant’s role in the possession dispute and that continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process within the Bhajan Lal principles.

The application was allowed, and FIR C.R. No. I-40 of 2014 registered at Kalol City Police Station, Gandhinagar, together with all consequential proceedings, was quashed and set aside qua the applicant.