Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr on 02 Sep 2025

Posted on September 10, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Supreme Court held as follows in a false rape case,

From Para 13,

13. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, we are of the view that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate committed an error in passing the summoning order. The High Court too overlooked the relevant aspects of the matter while rejecting the Section 482 application. It is very apparent on a plain reading of the complaint, more particularly, considering the nature of the allegations that the same doesn’t inspire any confidence. There is no good explanation offered, why it took four years for the respondent no.2 to file a complaint.

From Para 20,

20. The following steps should ordinarily determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:-
(i)Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling and impeccable quality?
(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false.
(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?
(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?
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, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused. [(See: Rajiv Thapar & Ors. v. Madan Lal Kapoor (Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2013)]

Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr on 02 Sep 2025

Citations: [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 880]

Other Sources:

https://www.livelaw.in/sc-judgments/2025-livelaw-sc-880-pradeep-kumar-kesarwani-versus-the-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-303321

https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/supreme-court-quashes-false-rape-case-lays-down-four-step-test-to-quash-frivolous-criminal-complaints

https://lawbeat.in/supreme-court-judgments/sc-quashes-rape-complaint-filed-after-4-years-explains-when-promise-of-marriage-is-not-rape-1518116

https://www.theedulaw.in/content/judgements/235/Court-laid-down-a-structured-four-step-test-to-evaluate-applications-for-quashing-criminal-proceedings.-

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/pages/blog/supreme-court-unveils-four-step-test-to-quash-frivolous-criminal-cases/

SUPREME COURT FOUR STEP TEST FOR QUASHING PETITIONS CLARIFIES SECTION 482 CrPC

PRADEEP KUMAR KESARWANI VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (Supreme Court)

Index of Quash judgments is here.

State of AP Vs Matham Vijaya Rao and Anr on 07 Jul 2025

Posted on July 14, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A good judgment from this Magistrate, with legally-valid reasons and conclusions… and also directing perjury proceedings to be initiated…

From Para 26,

26. The first and foremost contention of the accused and their counsel is that FIR No: 488/2017 is barred by limitation, as such the court shall dismiss the proceedings and as per exhibit P1, the alleged last act of cruelty has taken place on 18.09.2012, so the limitation period was expired on 17.09.2015, but the report was given on 03.08.2017, therefore the proceedings are time barred u/s 468 Cr.P.C. while section 473 Cr.P.C provides an exception to bar of limitation, but its application is not automatic and there must be an explanation by the prosecution for such inordinate delay. Since the case is barred by limitation, the court is required to dismiss the proceedings. In support of his contention, he relied on the following judgments:
A. Kamlesh Kalra v. Shilpa Kalra & Ors. Reported in 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 605 wherein it was held that “ As regards, the finding recorded by the High Court in respect of complaint/FIR filed under Section 498A IPC, we are of the firm opinion that the same does not call for interference. In the facts of this case, it is clear that the FIR filed in this regard in 2015 was time barred, having been filed much more than three years after the separation of Manish Kalra(husband) and Shilpika Kalra (wife) and the filing of the divorce petition by the husband, both in 2009. In the facts of the case, the reasons given by the High Court for quashing the proceedings under section 498A IPC are justified and do not call for interference by this Court”.
B. Gudipati Mallikarjun Rao v. Gudiapati Saranya 2023 0 Supreme (A.P) 582 wherein it was held that “ In the circumstances, it would have to be held that the complainant, filed by the defacto complainant, is beyond the period prescribed under Section 468 of Cr.P.C”.
C. Arun Vyas & Anr. V. Anitha Vyas 1999 0 Crl LJ 3479 wherein it was held that “ the court cannot take cognizance of an offence under Section 498-A of IPC, if the FIR is time barred, unless the delay is properly explained and condoned under Section 473 of the CrPC”.
D. Korimerla Videesha Vs. State of A.P. wherein it was held that “ According to Rule 10 of the A.P. Dowry Prohibition Rules, any offence under Section 3 and 4 or any dispute under Section 6 of the Act shall be filed before expiry of one year and finalized within two years from the date of filing”.

From Para 28,

28. In the case on hand the alleged demand for additional dowry was finally made on 18.9.2012 and that is the last date of alleged harassment. Even if the evidence of P.W.1 that the matter is place before the elders in 2013 has taken into consideration, the report is given after 4 years of said incident. But the report was given on 03.08.2017 i.e after 4 years of alleged harassment. So it can be safely conclude that the report is barred by limitation and the court has no power to take cognizance.

From Paras 36-37,

36. He further submitted that the conduct of P.W.1 amounts to perjury and warrants initiation of appropriate proceedings u/s 340 Cr.P.C in order to uphold the rule of law and protect sanctity of justice delivery system. On perusal of the record it appears that after filing the petition under section 340 Cr.P.C., my learned predecessor in the office returned the petition with some objections and the said petition is represented. But the said petition is again returned with endorsement previous objections not complied with and at present the said petition is not pending before the court. Here it is pertinent to mention that after assuming charge of this court, the said petition did not come before me and I have not given any assurance to the
counsel for the accused as mentioned in his written arguments.
37. During the cross examination P.W.1 denied that she completed her B.Tech in the year 2012. As per the evidence of D.W.1, Professor and controller of examination, JNTU Kakinada, P.W.1 completed her engineering graduation in April 2012 and on 16.10.2012 the student collected her provisional certificate from the college and as per the college rules, they cannot produce the provisional certificate of the student unless it is applied by the student. The evidence of D.W.1 clinchingly proves that P.W.1 completed her B.tech in April 2012 from JNTU. The evidence on record shows she intentionally denied that she completed her B.tech in 2012 and she has given false evidence on oath. Hence, she is certainly liable for punishment for giving false evidence. Hence, the Superintendent of this court is directed to give report before 3rd Add. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court against P.W.1 for giving false evidence.

From Paras 39, 41 and 42,

39. Learned counsel for the accused further contended that despite clear admissions of P.W.1 about unregistered land sale deeds dated 31.05.2010, 27.06.2011, this court refused to mark the said photocopies solely on the ground that they were not originals and this refusal is patently erroneous and it is settled law u/s 65 (c) of Indian Evidence Act, the secondary evidence is admissible where the original is lost or not in the possession of the party and a proper foundation is laid.
41. To mark the photocopies of documents, the party who intends to mark shall explain where is the original and as to why he is marking the photocopies of the documents. If the document is with the other party, first he has to give notice to the other party and even after receiving notice the other party fails to produce the document, then he can mark the photocopy. If he lost the original then also he is entitled to mark the photocopy, but in the case on hand there is no material on record to show that the accused or prosecution has given notice to other party to produce the documents and that the originals were lost. Without complying the conditions of section 65 of Indian Evidence Act, blaming this Court that the decision of the court is erroneous is not acceptable.
42. Learned counsel for the accused mentioned in his written arguments that the non production of the original unregistered sale deeds was reasonably explained during cross examination and it was put to P.W.1 that since accused no longer had access to the original land sale deeds dated. 31.05.2010 and 27.06.2011 since the property was transferred to Ch. Appala Raju and the denial of suggestion does not itself negate the reasonable explanation offered by the accused. On perusal of entire cross examination of P.W.1 it appears no such suggestion was given to P.W.1. As such the
contention of counsel for accused that they have given reasonable explanation for not filing the originals is not at all acceptable.

State of AP Vs Matham Vijaya Rao and Anr on 07 Jul 2025

Index of perjury judgments is here.

Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors on 15 May 2024

Posted on May 13, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A Full Bench of Apex Court held that, FIR which was lodged after 39 days of the incident, does not indicate the date or time so this is a fit case warranting exercise of powers conferred upon this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India so as to quash the proceedings of the criminal case.

From Para 14,

14. A bare perusal of the impugned FIR would reveal that the same was lodged by complainant-Barkat Ali on 29th June, 2019 with the allegation that the offences alleged were committed by the appellant and co-accused some time prior to 20th May, 2019. Thus, the complainant was not even sure of the date on which the alleged offences were committed. No reason whatsoever has been given in the FIR for huge delay of more than 39 days in approaching the police. The Investigating Officer prepared a site plan during the course of investigation which has been made a part of the record. A perusal of the said site plan would reveal that so far as the plot of Purnima Begum, wife of Barkat Ali is concerned, it is fully encumbered by a boundary wall and no damage is shown to this structure. The site plan indicates that there is some damage to the under-construction house of Sushma Kashyap. In the FIR, the damage suffered by the complainant was quantified at Rs. 6 lakhs whereas the damage suffered by Smt. Sushma Kashyap was quantified as Rs. 4 lakhs owing to the demolition of her under construction house. However, admittedly, Smt. Sushma did not lodge any complaint to the police.

From Paras 16 and 17,

16. Neither Sushma Kashyap nor her husband-Rajkumar Kashyap lodged any complaint regarding the so-called criminal activity committed by the appellant and the co-accused on their land. The site plan further indicates that the plot of the co-accused Saurabh Pratap Singh Thakur is immediately adjoining the plots of complainant-Barkat Ali and Sushma Kashyap. It is thus, apparent that there is an imminent possibility of animus between the complainant and the accused persons on this count. The FIR which was lodged after 39 days of the incident, does not indicate the date or time, when the accused trespassed into the house of the complainant and caused damage to his property and committed the other offences for which the FIR came to be registered. Therefore, we are of the view that the impugned FIR seems to be nothing but a tool to wreak vengeance against the appellant herein.
17. In this background, we feel that it is a fit case warranting exercise of powers conferred upon this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India so as to quash the proceedings of the criminal case.

Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors on 15 May 2024

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index of Quash judgments is here.

Musin Babulal Thengade and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 29 Jan 2025

Posted on March 2, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Bombay High Court at Aurangabab held that

From Para 6,

6. Apart from this, the learned A.P.P. has also placed reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rupali Devi Vs. State of Uttar pradesh reported in AIR OnLine (2019) SC 394.

From Paras 9 and 10,

9. As regards Section 472 of the Cr. P. C, contention of the learned A.P.P. that offence under Section 498-A of the IPC is a continuing wrong will have to be accepted, but only with a rider. Although the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC is a continuing wrong, it would not mean that limitation would continue to run perennially.The correct interpretation of the provision is provided in the matter of Arun Vyas and another Vs. Anita Vyas (supra) which sates that in case of offence under Section 498-A, a new starting point of limitation is start on every occasion when the wrong is committed and the period of limitation needs to be computed from the last such wrong. We may profitably quote paragraph 13 of the said decision, which reads as under :-
“ The essence of the offence in Section 498-A is cruelty as defined in the explanation appended to that section. It is a continuing offence and on each occasion on which the respondent was subjected to cruelty, she would have a new starting point of limitation. The last act of cruelty was committed against the respondent, within the meaning of the explanation, on October 13, 1988 when, on the allegation made by the respondent in the complaint to Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, she was forced to leave the matrimonial home. Having regard to the provisions of Sections 469 and 472 the period of limitation commenced for offences under Sections 406 and 498-A from October 13, 1988 and ended on October 12, 1991. But the charge sheet was filed on December 22, 1995,therefore, it was clearly barred by limitation under Section 468(2)(c) Cr. P. C.’’
10. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has further stated in paragraph No. 14 that in complaints under Section 498-A the wife will invariably be oppressed, who is subjected to cruelty and, therefore, Section 473 of the Cr. P.C should be construed liberally in favour of wife. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also cautioned that the words interest of justice employed in Section 473 of the Cr. P. C. cannot mean in the interest of prosecution and the true object of the provision is to advance the cause of justice by protecting the oppressed and punishing the offender. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also referred to its earlier judgment in the matter of Onkar Radha Manohari (Smt) Vs. Venka Venkata Reddy reported in 1993 AIR SCW 3595 that while dealing with Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, the Court should not only examine as to whether delay is properly explained, but also as to whether it is necessary to entertain a time barred matter in the interest of justice.

From Paras 13 and 14,

13. These observations have been made in the context of territorial jurisdiction. The judgment does not deal with the aspect of limitation. Provisions of Sections 468, 472 and 473 of the Cr. P.C did not fall for consideration in this case. As against this in the cases of Arun Vyas and another Vs Anita Vyas (supra) and Ramesh and other Vs. state of Tamil Nadu (supra), the question of limitation was directly involved and the same is answered referring to the relevant statutory provisions. It is settled legal principle that judgments of the Courts have to be interpreted in the backdrop of facts of the particular case. Ratio of a case has to be understood and appreciated in the backdrop of the facts in which the judgment is delivered. The law laid down in the judgment cannot be divorced from the facts of the case in which it is delivered. A judgment cannot be interpreted like a statute. It cannot be applied uniformly every where like Euclid’s theorems of geometry. Therefore, while dealing with aforesaid three judgments cited during the course of hearing, we are of the considered opinion that the ratio laid down in the matters of Arun Vyas and Ramesh which directly deal with the question of limitation will have to be accepted. The judgment in the matter of Rupali Devi is relating to territorial jurisdiction of a Court to deal with offence under Section 498-A of the IPC.
14. In the light of above, we are of the opinion that limitation for offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC shall commence from the last act of cruelty. Offence under Section 498-A of the IPC is a continuing offence implies that each act of cruelty would offer new starting point of limitation. Limitation for prosecution under Section 498-A does not continue for indefinite period. Such interpretation will render Section 468 of the Cr. P.C. nugatory or otiose for the purpose of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code which does not appear to be the intention of legislature. Had there been intention to exclude Section 498-A of the IPC from the sweep of Section 468 of the Cr. P.C express provision could have been made for the said purpose.

Musin Babulal Thengade and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 29 Jan 2025

Citations: [2025:BHC-AUG:2858-DB]

Other Sources:

https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/bombay-high-court/bombay-high-court-cruelty-498a-ipc-limitation-283107

https://lawtrend.in/limitation-period-for-ipc-section-498-a-to-commence-from-last-act-of-cruelty-bombay-high-court/

Limitation for offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC commences from the last act of cruelty: Bombay HC

https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/bombay-high-court/aurangabad-musin-babulal-thengade-v-the-state-of-maharashtra-2025-bhc-aug-2858-db-limitation-1567184

Index of Quash judgments is here.

Maheshwar Tigga Vs State of Jharkhand on 28 Sep 2020

Posted on October 31, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

The 3-judge bench again reiterated the usage and importance of Sec 313 CrPC, in this case where the parties very well knew they cannot get married due to their different religions and their parents are opposed to their marriage as they insisted that the marriage happen in a Temple Vs a Church !!!

From Para 6,

9. It stands well settled that circumstances not put to an accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be used against him, and must be excluded from consideration. In a criminal trial, the importance of the questions put to an accused are basic to the principles of natural justice as it provides him the opportunity not only to furnish his defence, but also to explain the incriminating circumstances against him. A probable defence raised by an accused is sufficient to rebut the accusation without the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt. This Court, time and again, has emphasised the importance of putting all relevant questions to an accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

Maheshwar Tigga Vs State of Jharkhand on 28 Sep 2020

State of Maharashtra Vs Ramchandra Bhikaji Wagh on 26 February 2020

Posted on March 11, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Single-judge bench of Bombay High Court highlighted the grounds on which a Legal terrorism was intended to be unleashed on an innocent family u/s 498A IPC, and thwarted it royally.

From Paras 9 and 10

9 Admittedly, complainant (PW-1) led a very happily married life with accused no.1. Their date of marriage is 27th June 1990 and PW-1 left the matrimonial home on 28th March 2001. As per PW-1, accused was given lot of gold, household appliances and Rs.50,000/- within three months of her marriage, which means that these things were given in the year 1990. There is no explanation as to why the complaint was then lodged only on 4th January 2002. According to PW-1, accused no.1 demanded Rs.1 lakh when he saw the retirement benefits cheque in the hand of her father and her father retired on 28th February 2001. The complaint has been lodged on 4th January 2002. The delay is not explained. Moreover, complainant left the house leaving behind her children, who were on the date she left the house were 9 years and 6 years, respectively. PW-1 never filed any custody petition or any petition for divorce. PW-1 filed maintenance petition on 10th March 2003. The delay again has not been explained.
10 It is settled law that delay in lodging the complaint cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding the same solely on the ground of delay in lodging the complaint. At the same time, delay has the effect of putting the Court in its guard to search if any explanation has been offered for the delay, and if offered, whether it is satisfactory. If prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the delay, the delay could be fatal to prosecution.

From Para 11,

11 In this case, there is not even an attempt by the prosecution to explain the delay. It appears that PW-1 had no problems living alone with her
parents but when PW-1 heard from her father that accused no.1 has married accused no.5 (which again has not proved), PW-1 decided to teach accused no.1 a lesson. It is unfortunate that in matters like this even the family members are getting dragged. Prosecution should refrain from dragging allfamily members unless there is enough specific evidence against the family members otherwise provisions of Section 498-A will unfortunately bemisused as a weapon.

Finally, in Para 15,

15 There is an acquittal and therefore, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to the accused under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless they are proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, accused having secured their acquittal, the presumption of their innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the Trial Court. For acquitting the accused, the Trial Court rightly observed that the prosecution had failed to prove its case.

State of Maharashtra Vs Ramchandra Bhikaji Wagh on 26 February 2020

Citations: [2020 SCC ONLINE BOM 331]

M.G.M.Joseph Anand Vs Suvitha Suganthi on 28 August, 2018

Posted on January 21, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Lying knife had the audacity to file criminal and DV cases, after the husband obtained ex parte divorce decree. Both are quashed as improbable to believe cases. Despite this, husband offered to pay 2 Crore rupees to lying knife.

As always, cases are quashed but no malicious prosecution proceedings were initiated by Hon’ble High Court of Madras.

M.G.M.Joseph Anand Vs Suvitha Suganthi on 28 August, 2018

Sopan @ Dnyandeo Maruti Bawadkar Vs The State of Maharashtra on 05 November, 2012

Posted on December 13, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this judgment delivered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court, it was held that the accused be given benefit of doubt in the criminal case of 498a IPC, as the depositions of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses is either hearsay or different from what is averred in the original complaint/FIR.

Sopan @ Dnyandeo Maruti Bawadkar Vs The State of Maharashtra on 05 November, 2012

[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]

Onkar Nath Mishra and Ors Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr on 14 December, 2007

Posted on September 28, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this landmark quash judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court held that IPC 406 and IPC 498A is not made out on the parents of the husband and as such the case on them is quashed.

Highlights

Knife Name: Neetu
Husband Name: Ashutosh Misra

He gave me no money for expenditure. When I left Bijnore he gave me only Rs.1/- only. I did not receive any phone from him till 7th November, 1994.
He told me that he has no time to go to Cell and to bring me to Bijnore.
talk to your father to give you Rs.50,000/- and VCR to bring with you.
If you come here alone with the child, we will give you good beatings.
Almost 2 weeks ago, Hira Lal informed me that my husband took away all my belongings with him at 4 A.M.
she stated that, my father-in-law and sister-in-law clearly warned him that till the time I will not bring Rs.50,000/- cash and V.C.R. they will not keep me.
In the charge-sheet, it has been recorded that despite issue of notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to the complainant and her father by the ASI, neither the complainant nor her father turned up to take back her Stridhan , which was alleged to be with the appellants. It has been noted that the complainant does not want to take back her Stridhan.

Law point from Para 10,

It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence.

From Para 19,

Section 498A I.P.C. was introduced with the avowed object to combat the menace of dowry deaths and harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband or his relatives. Nevertheless, the provision should not be used as a device to achieve oblique motives.

Onkar Nath Mishra & Ors Vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 14 December, 2007

Citations: [2007 SUPREME 8 405], [2008 SCC 2 561], [2008 CRLJ 0 1391], [2008 AIR SC 204], [2008 RCR CRI 1 336], [2008 SCC 1 65], [2007 STPL LE 0 39378], [2008 SCC CRI 1 507], [2008 AD SC 2 398], [2008 BLJR 56 753], [2008 MADLW CRL 2 955], [2008 ACC 60 694], [2008 SCC CRL 1 507], [2008 JT 1 20], [2008 LW CRL 2 955], [2008 ALL MR CRI 1360], [2008 ALT CRI 3 83], [2008 AIR SC 96], [2008 MAHLJ CRI 2 550], [2008 SCC CR 1 507], [2008 CRIMES 1 42], [2008 DRJ 100 3], [2008 UJ 1 107], [2008 MLJ CRI 2 686], [2008 SLT 1 329], [2007 AIOL 1302], [2008 ANJ SC 1 124], [2008 CRLJ SC 1351], [2007 SCALE 14 403], [2007 SCR 13 716], [2008 AIC SC 62 155], [2008 CRI LJ 1391]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1907093/ and https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae46e4b01497114135e4

Rajesh Gutta Vs State of A.P. on 1 March, 2011

Posted on September 24, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that,

In which it is clearly stated that the police Officer has to question the victim girl, witnesses and contradict the witnesses and record the same. In the present case, the statement of the victim girl is concerned, the investigation officer stated in the charge sheet that he has contacted her and she confirmed the contents of the complaint given by the complainant. This Court is of the view that the Investigating Officer has to confirm the allegations mentioned in the complaint with the aggrieved person. This Court is of the view that the Officer, who is investigating the case, should record the statement as per the above said provisions. The first duty of the Investigating Officer is to find out the probability and truthfulness of her complaint unless otherwise the complainant’s version appraised by the Investigating Officer with the facts and circumstances of the case. Merely recording the statement as stated by the witnesses cannot be called as investigation. Investigation includes examination of the witnesses, confronting the witnesses on the basis of materials collected by the Investigating Officer and also the version of the person who is aggrieved because of the said complaint. Mere reproduction of the complaint without proper examination cannot be called as statement recorded during investigation.

Rajesh Gutta Vs State of A.P. on 1 March, 2011

Case Details:

Rajesh Gutta Vs State of A.P. on 1 March, 2011 (Case Details)

Citations: [2011 RCR CRIMINAL 5 452], [2011 CRLJ 3506], [2011 CRIMES 3 236], [2011 DMC 2 655], [2011 SCC ONLINE AP 562], [2011 CRI LJ 3506], [2012 E CR N 1 365]

Other Source links: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5767b10ee691cb22da6d1ec2 or https://mynation.net/docs/4921-2010/

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Delay or Unexplained Delay In Filing Complaint

Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr on 02 Sep 2025

State of AP Vs Matham Vijaya Rao and Anr on 07 Jul 2025

Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors on 15 May 2024

Musin Babulal Thengade and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 29 Jan 2025

Maheshwar Tigga Vs State of Jharkhand on 28 Sep 2020

State of Maharashtra Vs Ramchandra Bhikaji Wagh on 26 February 2020

M.G.M.Joseph Anand Vs Suvitha Suganthi on 28 August, 2018

Sopan @ Dnyandeo Maruti Bawadkar Vs The State of Maharashtra on 05 November, 2012

Onkar Nath Mishra and Ors Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr on 14 December, 2007

Rajesh Gutta Vs State of A.P. on 1 March, 2011