Quashing of FIR: A Case of Contradictory Allegations and Ulterior Motives.


20-August-2025 Writ Petition >> Criminal Law  

In Premsukh Kisandas Kataria v/s The State Of Maharashtra, (Through Daund Police Station) & Another, a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to quash an FIR (No. 250 of 2014) filed in Pune. The FIR, registered on July 31, 2014, accuses the Petitioner of offenses under Sections 376, 417, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The Complainant (Respondent No. 2) alleged that the Petitioner, a former school secretary and political figure, had a relationship with her beginning in 1994 under the pretext of supporting her son's education. She claimed he promised to marry her and sexually assaulted her without her consent. She stated that this relationship, which began during her marriage, resulted in the birth of two children in 1999 and 2001.


 

 

The Petitioner contended that the FIR was filed with malicious intent to harm his political career. He highlighted that the Complainant had previously filed other complaints against him, including one under the Domestic Violence Act in 2011 and another for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in 2012, both of which he successfully challenged. The Petitioner also noted that he had filed a criminal complaint against the Complainant in 2013 for changing her name in the official gazette to include his surname.

The court noted significant contradictions in the Complainant's claims. Her prior complaints under the Domestic Violence Act and Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. were based on the premise that she was the Petitioner's wife, which directly conflicts with her subsequent claim of being raped. The court found this duality of claims—one of a consensual relationship (implied by her seeking spousal rights) and the other of sexual assault—to be illogical and improbable.

Based on the evidence and attending circumstances, the court concluded that the FIR was a retaliatory action, likely filed after the Petitioner initiated a criminal case against the Complainant. The court also observed an unexplained delay of 18 years in lodging the complaint. Citing the Supreme Court's "Bhajan Lal" ruling, the court determined that the allegations were "absurd and inherently improbable," and that the proceeding was "manifestly attended with mala fide and/or maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive." Consequently, the court found no sufficient grounds for a trial and quashed the FIR.


Section 376., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 417., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 506., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860  

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005  

Section 125., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Section 482., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973