In Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., MANU/SCOR/68068/2025 ("Pradeep Kesarwani's case"), the Supreme Court reiterated the judiciary's duty to guard against the misuse of criminal process, particularly in sensitive cases, while reiterating a four-pronged test which must be followed to determine which criminal cases ought to be quashed.
Setting aside the order dated 12 September 2019 ("Impugned Order") passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad ("Allahabad High Court"), the Apex Court underscored that vague, uncorroborated, and belated allegations cannot be used to harass the accused (the case pertained to allegations of rape basis false promise to marry). Most importantly, the Apex Court reiterated the importance of the 'four step test' as laid down in Rajiv Thapar & Ors v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330 (Rajiv Thapar's case), to determine the cases in which a High Court should exercise its powers of quashing a criminal complaint or investigation under erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC").
It may be noted that erstwhile Section 482 of CrPC empowers a High Court to pass any orders towards the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process. This power is frequently exercised by a High Court to quash criminal proceedings (at various stages of investigation or trial) which are found to be in derogation of the principles of criminal law.
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS'), is in pari materia to the erstwhile Section 482, CrPC (which it has replaced), and Pradeep Kesarwani's case would have a significant bearing on the implementation of Section 528, BNSS.
Factual Matrix and Procedural History:
The case stemmed from a private complaint filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad ("Ld. Magistrate") in 2014, alleging, inter alia, the offence of rape under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") along with offences under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against Mr. Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani ("Appellant"). The allegations in the complaint arose from incidents which purportedly occurred in 2010, when, inter alia, the Appellant had allegedly established a sexual relationship with the complainant under the pretext of false promise of marriage.
The Ld. Magistrate after considering the private complaint took cognizance of the same and proceeded to issue a summoning order against the Appellant, directing him to appear before the trial court and face a criminal trial. Being aggrieved by the summoning order, the Appellant challenged the same before the Allahabad High Court by invoking erstwhile Section 482 of CrPC. However, the Allahabad High Court rejected the challenge. Subsequently, the Appellant challenged the Impugned Order before the Supreme Court, in the judgment under discussion.
Judicial Analysis and Findings:
After considering the merits of the case and hearing both the parties, the Supreme Court set aside the Impugned order, inter alia, on grounds of delay in lodging of complaint, the allegations being vague and uncorroborated, and the material on record demonstrating that elements of the offence of rape were prima facie not made out from the facts.
While allowing the SLP, the Hon'ble Supreme Court went on to discuss the position of law as laid down in Rajiv Thapar's case and held that the following four-pronged test should be followed by a High Court to determine whether the material before it warrants exercise of the power of quashing under erstwhile Section 482, CrPC:
- First, the material relied upon by the accused should be credible, sound, and unimpeachable, i.e., the material should be of sterling quality.
- Second, the material must completely disprove the allegations in the complaint.
- Third, the material relied upon should be unchallenged and irrefutable by the prosecution.
- Finally, the Court must assess whether allowing the trial to proceed would result in abuse of process and would serve no justice.
If all the four conditions are met, a High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings. As the case under consideration satisfied the above criteria, the criminal complaint and prosecution was quashed.
Legal Landscape Before the Pradeep Kumar Case: A Precedential Overview
The exercise of inherent powers by a High Court under erstwhile Section 482 of the CrPC was inter alia guided by the law laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and Niharika Infrastructures v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401. These cases laid down the broad scope and ambit of the High Court's jurisdiction to intervene in criminal proceedings, to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice. Over time, the Supreme Court has interpreted when and how these inherent powers can be exercised, the aim being to urge the High Courts to interfere in proceedings which, prima facie, show that the case against the accused has no basis in fact or law.
One such ruling is CBI v. Aryan Singh & Ors. (2023) 18 SCC 399 ("Aryan Singh's case"), where the Supreme Court clarified that the scope of proceedings under erstwhile Section 482, CrPC, are very limited. The Hon'ble Court's guidelines are as follows :
- No Mini-Trial at the Quashing Stage: A High Court is not required to conduct a mini-trial at the stage of quashing proceedings. The High Court's jurisdiction is very limited and confined to examining whether there is sufficient material to proceed against the accused.
- Mala Fides to Be Considered Only at Trial: At the pre-trial stage, the High Court should not consider whether the criminal proceedings were instituted maliciously or with ulterior motives. Such questions are to be assessed only after the trial, when evidence has been led.
- Prima Facie Case as the Sole Test: The only consideration for a High Court while considering proceedings for quashing is whether the FIR or complaint sought to be quashed discloses a prima facie case against the accused.
Aryan Singh's case set out the restraint to be exercised by a High Court while dealing with quashing proceedings, while also setting out the intent and scope with which the High Court should approach quashing proceedings.
On the other hand, Pradeep Kesarwani's case largely lays out a threshold for the case material before the High Court, which can warrant the exercise of the powers of quashing.
Hence, instead of dealing with the intent behind exercising the power to quash, Pradeep Kesarwani's discusses what case material is good enough to quash ongoing proceedings.
Final Analysis and Key Takeaways:
Pradeep Kesarwani's case has reiterated well-established principles laid down in Rajiv Thapar's case. These guidelines are imperative as they would assist a High Court in determining whether the material placed before it is good enough to require interference with criminal proceedings.
In cases where criminal proceedings, prima facie, do not inspire confidence, a High Court would be required to assess whether the material on record (being of unimpeachable quality) disproves all allegations against the accused adequately. Where the material is not unimpeachable, a High Court may be inclined to let the case be decided by the trial court, as the veracity of such material can be determined at the stage of recording of evidence. Further, if all allegations are not adequately addressed, a High Court may not be inclined towards rushing to close proceedings, without allowing the prosecution to fully present its case at the stage of trial.
The principles reiterated by the above judgment may assist in preventing premature closure of criminal cases, where a trial is warranted because the case material requires determination in evidence. Further, the judgment may assist the prosecution in seeking liberty to complete its investigation if the allegations are not fully refuted basis unimpeachable material.
At the same time, the judgment would also aid a complainant as a High Court may not simply refuse to interfere with criminal proceedings on the ground that the trial court would look into all evidence and decide the matter. Where the material is good enough (as per the aforementioned test), High Courts can be expected to interfere and quash proceedings which are an abuse of process.
The judgment gives a balanced view to ensure that criminal proceedings which are nothing but an abuse of process can be interfered with at an early stage, to prevent harassment being caused to accused persons; at the same time, it also cautions against use of the power of quashing in a hasty manner, and without proper appreciation of the material being placed before the Court.
The content of this document does not necessarily reflect the views / position of Khaitan & Co but remain solely those of the author(s). For any further queries or follow up, please contact Khaitan & Co at editors@khaitanco.com.
