Background of the Case
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India recently set aside an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had refused to quash criminal proceedings arising out of an FIR filed by a woman employee against her male colleague. The case revolved around allegations of sexual exploitation under the guise of a promise to marry, juxtaposed with the professional disputes and administrative actions between the two individuals within their workplace at the Municipal Corporation.
The complainant, a computer operator, had been acquainted with the accused, an Assistant Revenue Inspector, for over five years. Despite being married and having a son, she entered into a consensual relationship with the accused, claiming that he had assured her of marriage. She alleged that on 15 March 2023, the accused established physical relations with her under the promise of marriage, and that the relationship continued until April 2023. When she confronted him about his alleged promise, he refused and purportedly asked her to marry someone else. This led to the registration of an FIR under Sections 376 and 376(2)(n) of the IPC for rape and repeated sexual assault.
Events Leading to the FIR
A deeper examination of the record revealed a contrasting sequence of events that raised questions about the bona fides of the complaint. Prior to the registration of the FIR, the accused had made several representations to both municipal authorities and the police, complaining about the complainant’s conduct. These included allegations of harassment, repeated threats of suicide, and verbal abuse at the workplace. In response to these representations, the municipal authorities issued a show-cause notice dated 6 July 2023 to the complainant, cautioning her that disciplinary action, including termination, could follow if her behaviour did not improve.
Notably, the alleged sexual incidents had taken place between March and April 2023, but the FIR was lodged only after the issuance of the show-cause notice, creating a significant time gap. This delay, coupled with the prior administrative and police complaints, became a critical factor in the Court’s evaluation of whether the criminal proceedings were initiated with a genuine intent or as an act of retaliation. The timeline indicated that the FIR appeared to have been filed as a reaction to the disciplinary proceedings, rather than as an immediate response to a crime.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Judgment
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed that the sequence of events left “a gaping possibility” that the FIR was an afterthought and a vehicle for vengeance in light of the pending administrative consequences faced by the complainant. The Court emphasized that criminal law should not be misused as an instrument of retribution or to settle personal or professional scores.
The Supreme Court also took note of the consensual nature of the relationship, the significant delay in lodging the complaint, and the fact that the FIR was filed only after the complainant faced disciplinary action. The Court thus concluded that the case did not warrant continuation of criminal proceedings, as it appeared to be a misuse of the legal process with an ulterior motive.
Consequently, the Court quashed the FIR and the chargesheet, holding that the initiation of the criminal case was mala fide and devoid of prosecutable substance. This judgment serves as a reminder that while genuine cases of sexual offences must be treated with utmost seriousness, the criminal justice system cannot be used as a means of personal retaliation or professional vendetta.
