Quashing of Criminal Case; Four step test.

by

Introduction

The  Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of U.P. & Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 11642 of 2019), decided on 02 September 2025 has reiterated the powers of the High Courts to quash criminal cases and also the four-step test to analyse whether the case is fit for quashing or not under section 482 CrPC or 528 BNSS.

Facts of Pradeep case (supra)

  • Complaint: Filed in 2014 alleging incidents of 2010.
  • Allegations:
    • Rape on false pretext of marriage.
    • Abortion caused without consent.
    • Caste-based abuse (invoking SC/ST Act).
  • Proceedings:
    • Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons under Section 376 IPC.
    • High Court (Allahabad, 2019) refused to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
    • Appellant challenged in Supreme Court, claiming consensual relationship and abuse of process.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning

  1. Delay and Vagueness: Complaint lodged after 4 years with no convincing explanation. No specific dates or corroboration.
  2. Frivolous Implication: Even parents of the appellant were unnecessarily arrayed as accused.
  3. Abuse of Process: The nature of allegations did not inspire confidence and continuation of trial would tarnish reputation without advancing justice.
  4. Principle of Judicial Duty: Courts must guard against prosecutions instituted for vengeance, harassment, or ulterior motives.

The Four-Step Test for Quashing

The Hon’ble Court crystallised a structured test (reaffirming Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, 2013) as detailed below:

  1. Soundness of Defence Material
    • Is the accused’s material sound, reasonable, indubitable, sterling, and impeccable?
  2. Ability to Rule Out Prosecution’s Case
    • Does it clearly negate the factual assertions of the complaint, such that a reasonable person would dismiss them as false?
  3. Unrefuted or Irrefutable Nature
    • Has the material remained unrefuted by the complainant, or is it incapable of being refuted?
  4. Ends of Justice / Abuse of Process
    • Would allowing trial to continue result in abuse of process and failure of justice?

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if all four conditions are met, High Court must quash the proceedings. In the above case all requirements were fulfilled and the criminal proceedings were quashed holidng that  “Continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellant would be nothing but gross abuse of the process of law.”

Significance & Practice Guidance

  1. Structured Framework: Provides a clear, step-by-step tool for High Courts while deciding petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS).
  2. Protection Against Malicious Litigation: Shields individuals from frivolous and vexatious complaints, especially in sensitive offences like rape on false pretext of marriage.
  3. Consent v. Rape Distinction: Reinforces Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013 CrLJ 2990) — mere breach of promise to marry ≠ rape; intention at inception is key.
  4. Judicial Economy: Emphasises saving court time by quashing hopeless prosecutions unlikely to result in conviction.
  5. Conduct of Complainant: Refusal to even accept Supreme Court notice considered indicative of lack of seriousness.

Related Precedents

  • Rajiv Thapar & Ors. v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330 – Four-step test for quashing reiterated.
  • Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951 – Duty of courts to closely scrutinise vexatious complaints.
  • Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, 2013 CrLJ 2990 – Distinction between rape and consensual sex under promise of marriage.

Important Takeaways

  • When moving quashing petitions under Section 528 BNSS, frame arguments explicitly under the four-step test.
  • Emphasise delay, vagueness, absence of corroboration, and conduct of complainant.
  • Support defence with impeccable material (documents, communications, undisputed records).
  • Argue that continuation of trial would be a waste of judicial time and a misuse of criminal law.

Conclusion

Thus this judgment strengthens the jurisprudence that quashing is not an exception but a judicial duty where allegations are manifestly false or proceedings are clearly an abuse of process.

Leave a Comment