JurisOptima
Cases/2025 LiveLaw (SC) 880
Landmark JudgmentAllowed
2025 LiveLaw (SC) 880 • Supreme Court of India

Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of UP

“Four-Step Test for Quashing Criminal Cases Based on False Promise of Marriage”

2 September 2025Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice Sandeep Mehta
Download PDF

TL;DR

The Supreme Court laid down a definitive four-step test for High Courts to apply when deciding whether to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) in cases involving allegations of rape based on a false promise of marriage. The Court held that a mere failure to fulfil a commitment to marry, without any fraudulent or mala fide intention from the very beginning, does not constitute the crime of rape. The Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant, finding the complaint lacked credibility due to a four-year delay, absence of corroboration, and the complainant's failure to even accept court notice.

The Bottom Line

A broken promise of marriage is not automatically rape. Courts must apply the four-step test to distinguish genuine cases of criminal deception from consensual relationships that ended in disappointment. High Courts should use their inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash frivolous or vexatious complaints that constitute abuse of judicial process.

Criminal LawDue ProcessPersonal LibertyFair Trial

Case Timeline

The journey from FIR to Supreme Court verdict

event
1 Jan 2010

Alleged Incidents

The complainant alleged that the appellant engaged in sexual intercourse with her under a false promise of marriage during 2010

filing
11 Aug 2014

Private Complaint Filed

A private complaint was filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, after a four-year delay, invoking Sections 323, 376, 377, 452, 504, 120B IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act

hearing
1 Sept 2014

Magistrate Conducts Inquiry

The Magistrate took direct cognizance and conducted an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC instead of referring the matter for police investigation

order
1 Jan 2015

Summoning Order Issued

The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate issued a summoning order against the appellant based on the inquiry

filing
1 Jan 2016

High Court Petition Filed

The appellant filed Application No. 12607 of 2016 under Section 482 CrPC before the Allahabad High Court seeking to quash the summoning order

order
1 Jun 2016

High Court Dismisses Petition

The Allahabad High Court declined to intervene and dismissed the quashing petition

judgment
2 Sept 2025

Supreme Court Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order, quashed all criminal proceedings, and laid down the four-step test for quashing such cases

The Story

In August 2014, a private complaint was filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Allahabad, by a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste community. The complainant alleged that in 2010, the appellant Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani had engaged in sexual intercourse with her under a false promise of marriage. The complaint further alleged coercion through compromising video material, forced abortion, and caste-based abuse. The complainant invoked Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult), 376 (rape), 452 (house-trespass after preparation for hurt), 377 (unnatural offences), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Rather than referring the matter to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, the Magistrate took direct cognizance and conducted an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before issuing a summoning order against the appellant.

The appellant challenged the summoning order before the Allahabad High Court by filing an application under Section 482 CrPC (Application No. 12607 of 2016), seeking to quash the proceedings. However, the High Court declined to intervene and dismissed the petition.

Aggrieved by the High Court's refusal, the appellant approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court noted several critical deficiencies in the complaint: a four-year unexplained delay between the alleged incidents in 2010 and the filing of the complaint in August 2014; the absence of specific dates and locations of the alleged incidents; lack of independent corroboration for the allegations of compromising videos and forced abortion; and significantly, the complainant's failure to even accept the Supreme Court's notice, which the Court deemed indicative of a lack of seriousness about the matter from the outset.

Legal Issues

Click each question to reveal the Supreme Court's answer

1Question

Whether a complaint alleging rape based on a false promise of marriage can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC when the allegations lack credibility and corroboration?

Tap to reveal answer
1SC Answer

Yes. The Supreme Court held that when the material produced by the accused is of sterling and impeccable quality, and it effectively negates the allegations, and the prosecution cannot meaningfully refute it, and continuing the proceedings would amount to abuse of process, the High Court must exercise its inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings.

Establishes that High Courts have both the power and the duty to quash unmeritorious false promise of marriage cases at the threshold stage itself.

2Question

What is the legal distinction between a broken promise of marriage and rape by deception?

Tap to reveal answer
2SC Answer

The Court held that a mere failure to fulfil a commitment to marry without any fraudulent or mala fide intention from the very beginning does not in itself constitute the crime of rape. Criminal liability arises only when the accused, from the inception, had no intention of marrying and used the false promise solely as a tool to exploit the victim sexually.

Draws a clear doctrinal line between civil breach of promise and criminal sexual deception, preventing the criminalization of all failed relationships.

3Question

What test should High Courts apply when exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings in such cases?

Tap to reveal answer
3SC Answer

The Court formulated a four-step test: (1) Whether the accused's material is of sterling and impeccable quality; (2) Whether the material effectively negates the allegations; (3) Whether the prosecution cannot meaningfully refute the material; (4) Whether continuing proceedings would constitute abuse of process.

Provides a structured, replicable framework for High Courts across India, replacing ad hoc decision-making with a principled four-step analysis.

4Question

What factors indicate that a complaint of rape under false promise of marriage is frivolous or vexatious?

Tap to reveal answer
4SC Answer

The Court identified several red flags: unexplained long delay in filing the complaint, absence of specific dates and locations of alleged incidents, lack of independent corroboration, and the complainant's failure to participate in proceedings (such as not accepting court notice).

Provides practical indicators that trial courts and High Courts can use to assess the bona fides of such complaints at an early stage.

Arguments

The battle of arguments before the Supreme Court

Petitioner

Vihaan Kumar

1

Inordinate and unexplained delay in filing complaint

The appellant argued that the four-year gap between the alleged incidents in 2010 and the filing of the complaint in August 2014 was suspicious and unexplained, casting serious doubt on the bona fides of the complaint.

2

Absence of corroboration and specific details

The complaint lacked specific dates and locations of the alleged incidents. There was no independent corroboration for the serious allegations of compromising videos, forced abortion, or caste-based abuse.

3

No evidence of mala fide intention from inception

The appellant contended that there was no material to demonstrate that he harboured a fraudulent intention to deceive the complainant from the very beginning. A mere breach of a good-faith promise does not amount to rape.

Section 376 IPCSection 90 IPC
4

Abuse of judicial process

Allowing the criminal proceedings to continue on the basis of such an unsubstantiated complaint would constitute an abuse of the process of the court and waste judicial resources.

Section 482 CrPC

Respondent

State of Haryana

1

Sexual exploitation under false promise of marriage

The complainant maintained that the appellant had engaged in sexual intercourse with her by exploiting her trust through a false promise of marriage, which vitiates consent and amounts to rape.

2

Coercion and abuse

The complaint alleged additional acts of coercion including the making of compromising videos, forced abortion, and caste-based abuse, which went beyond a mere broken promise.

3

Invocation of SC/ST Act protections

Being from a Scheduled Caste community, the complainant invoked the protections of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, alleging caste-based exploitation.

Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

Court's Analysis

How the Court reasoned its decision

The Supreme Court undertook a thorough examination of the complaint and the circumstances surrounding it. The Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta found multiple indicators of the complaint being frivolous: a four-year unexplained delay, absence of specifics regarding dates and locations, lack of independent corroboration for the serious allegations, and most tellingly, the complainant's failure to even accept the Supreme Court's notice. The Court drew upon the principles established in Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor regarding the standard of evidence for quashing, and the framework from Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P. regarding the duty of courts to look beyond pleadings. The Court then formulated a comprehensive four-step test to guide High Courts in exercising their inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, consolidating the existing jurisprudence into a structured analytical framework.

A mere failure to fulfil a commitment to marry without any fraudulent or mala fide intention from the very beginning does not in itself constitute a crime of rape.

Establishes the core legal principle that distinguishes criminal deception from civil breach of promise in the context of sexual relationships.

When there is an act by the accused which involves taking advantage or exploiting the victim with a clear and demonstrable wrongful intention, it leads to criminal liability.

Clarifies that criminal liability requires proof of mala fide intent at the inception of the relationship, not merely a subsequent change of heart.

Summoning of an accused on a frivolous complaint has its adverse impact, capable of tarnishing their reputation.

Acknowledges the serious consequences of criminal summoning and the need for judicial gatekeeping at the threshold stage.

Courts must very carefully examine whether promises of marriage were genuine or constituted cheating or deception to satisfy lustful intentions.

Places the burden on courts to conduct a nuanced factual analysis rather than accepting allegations at face value.

If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings.

Makes it a matter of judicial duty, not mere discretion, for High Courts to quash proceedings when the four-step test is satisfied.

Allowed

The Verdict

Relief Granted

The criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 655/2014 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, were quashed in their entirety. The appellant was discharged from all charges.

Directions Issued

  • High Courts must apply the four-step test when exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) to quash criminal proceedings in false promise of marriage cases
  • Step 1: Determine whether the material produced by the accused is of sound, reasonable, and indubitable quality — of sterling and impeccable quality
  • Step 2: Assess whether the material would rule out the assertions contained in the charges, persuading a reasonable person to dismiss the accusations as false or untenable
  • Step 3: Consider whether the prosecution or complainant has not refuted the material, or cannot justifiably refute it
  • Step 4: Examine whether proceeding with the trial would constitute an abuse of process of the court and would not serve the ends of justice
  • If all four steps are answered in the affirmative, the High Court should quash the criminal proceedings
  • Courts must carefully distinguish between a genuine promise of marriage that was subsequently broken (civil wrong) and a fraudulent promise made with mala fide intention from inception (criminal offence)
  • Judges must explore beyond the pleadings and examine surrounding facts and circumstances to identify any abuse of process

Key Legal Principles Established

1

A mere failure to fulfil a commitment to marry without fraudulent or mala fide intention from the beginning does not constitute rape.

2

Criminal liability under Section 376 IPC requires proof that the accused had no intention of marrying from the very inception and used the false promise solely to exploit the victim sexually.

3

High Courts must apply the four-step test when deciding quashing petitions under Section 482 CrPC in false promise of marriage cases.

4

Evidence produced by the accused for quashing must be of sterling and impeccable quality — sound, reasonable, and indubitable.

5

Summoning an accused on a frivolous or vexatious complaint is a serious matter capable of tarnishing reputation and must be guarded against.

6

Courts must look beyond the pleadings and examine surrounding facts and circumstances to detect abuse of process.

7

Unexplained delay in filing a complaint, absence of specific details, and lack of corroboration are indicators of a frivolous complaint.

8

The distinction between consent given under a genuine promise later broken and consent obtained through deliberate deception is central to determining criminal liability.

9

A woman consenting to sexual intercourse out of genuine love or emotional connection is different from consent vitiated by misrepresentation.

Key Takeaways

What different people should know from this case

  • A broken promise of marriage does not automatically amount to rape. The law distinguishes between a genuine relationship that did not result in marriage and deliberate sexual exploitation through false promises.
  • If someone files a false complaint of rape alleging a broken promise of marriage against you, you can seek quashing of the case under Section 482 CrPC by demonstrating that the complaint is frivolous.
  • Courts will examine factors like unexplained delay in filing the complaint, lack of specific details, and absence of corroboration to determine whether the complaint is genuine.
  • Conversely, if you were genuinely deceived by someone who never intended to marry you and used the promise only to sexually exploit you, the law provides criminal remedies.
  • Filing a false criminal complaint is itself a serious matter and courts may take an adverse view of complainants who do not pursue their own cases seriously.

Watch & Learn

Video explanations in multiple languages

Frequently Asked Questions

The Supreme Court formulated a four-step test for High Courts to apply when considering quashing petitions under Section 482 CrPC in false promise of marriage cases: (1) Whether the accused's material is of sterling and impeccable quality; (2) Whether the material effectively negates the allegations; (3) Whether the prosecution cannot meaningfully refute it; (4) Whether continuing proceedings would constitute abuse of process. If all four are satisfied, the High Court must quash the proceedings.
No. The Supreme Court held that a mere failure to fulfil a commitment to marry, without any fraudulent or mala fide intention from the very beginning, does not constitute the crime of rape. Criminal liability arises only when the accused never intended to marry and used the false promise solely as a tool for sexual exploitation.
A broken promise is when someone genuinely intended to marry but later changed their mind due to circumstances. A false promise is when someone never intended to marry and used the promise purely to deceive and sexually exploit the victim. Only the latter constitutes a criminal offence.
Yes. Under Section 482 CrPC (or Section 528 BNSS), the High Court can quash criminal proceedings if the four-step test from the Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani judgment is satisfied. Factors like unexplained delay, absence of specific details, lack of corroboration, and non-participation of the complainant weigh in favour of quashing.
Yes. The Court clarified that the four-step test applies equally under Section 528 of the BNSS, which is the equivalent of Section 482 CrPC. The inherent power of the High Court to prevent abuse of process has been preserved under the new criminal procedure code.
Key indicators include: unexplained long delay between the alleged incidents and the filing of the complaint, vague allegations without specific dates and locations, absence of independent corroboration for serious charges, and the complainant's failure to participate in proceedings or accept court notices.

Explore Related Cases

More case summaries on similar legal topics

Landmarkallowed

Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana

2025 INSC 162

The Case That Made Silence During Arrest Unconstitutional

Constitutional LawCriminal Law
Feb 2025Read Summary →
Landmarkallowed

Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala

2024 INSC 625

When Criticism of a Public Figure Doesn't Become a Caste Atrocity

Criminal LawConstitutional Law
Aug 2024Read Summary →
Landmarkallowed

Just Rights for Children v. S. Harish

2024 INSC 714

Watching Child Pornography is NOT Just "Moral Decay" — It's a Serious Crime

Criminal LawConstitutional Law
Sept 2024Read Summary →
Landmarkdismissed

Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena

(2015) 6 SCC 353

Justice Delayed is Justice Denied - The Call for Swift Maintenance Orders

Family LawCriminal Law
Jul 2014Read Summary →
View all 74 case summaries

DISCLAIMER: This case summary is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, please consult a qualified advocate. JurisOptima is not responsible for any actions taken based on this information.

Facing aSimilar Situation?

Our advocates can help you understand how this judgment applies to your case.

Browse More Cases
Back to All Cases