Can't Rule Out ASI's Role In False Rape Case Conspiracy: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses To Expunge Remarks

Trial Court hasn't declared ASI Naresh Kumar guilty—but an inquiry into his conduct is necessary,” - Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a petition by ASI Naresh Kumar, who had sought the removal of adverse remarks made against him in a Rewari trial court judgment that had acquitted multiple men in a gangrape case. The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s direction to the Superintendent of Police, Rewari, to investigate ASI Naresh Kumar’s alleged involvement in a conspiracy to fabricate the rape complaint, observing that “if it is found that he was responsible for prompting the prosecutrix to file false cases against innocent persons, it would be a matter of concern.

“Possibility cannot be ruled out that ASI Naresh Kumar used prosecutrix to extort money,” Trial Court had held

The background of the case is as startling as its legal implications. A woman named Sapna had filed an FIR in March 2016 alleging gangrape by six men. The case, carrying charges under Sections 376D, 342, 366, 328, 506 & 120-B IPC, eventually led to the accused being honourably acquitted. But what captured judicial attention were observations made about the prosecutrix’s relationship with ASI Naresh Kumar, which the Trial Court described as “not above board.”

The prosecutrix despite being married, and without obtaining divorce, stayed with ASI Naresh Kumar at Gurgaon... she preferred to call him during distress rather than her husband or relatives.

Her own family members, through affidavits, stated she was a lady of immoral character involved in falsely implicating innocent persons in conspiracy with ASI Naresh Kumar.

He is the one who accompanied her to the house of the accused, the one referred to as her 'jija' in her statement, and the one who took custody of her after medical examination.

The Trial Court then made the explosive observation: “Possibility cannot be ruled out that the allegations by prosecutrix’s parents and the defence—that ASI Naresh Kumar is using her to extort money—have some truth in them.”

"It’s not a finding of guilt, just a direction for inquiry": High Court rejects ASI’s plea for expunging remarks 

Arguing before the High Court, ASI Naresh Kumar’s counsel contended that he was never a party in the criminal proceedings—neither an accused, nor a witness, nor the investigating officer—yet the Trial Court made damaging remarks without granting him an opportunity to be heard. The counsel invoked the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mohammad Naim (1964) and Manish Dixit (2000), which caution against passing adverse remarks against individuals not before the court.

But the High Court, presided by Justice Jagmohan Bansal, refused to accept this argument, stating: “It is not a case where the Trial Court has held the petitioner guilty. The direction is only to conduct an inquiry by SP, Rewari. The petitioner will certainly have an opportunity to present his side when such inquiry is held.”

Justice Bansal further observed: “Rape is a serious offence. On account of false implications, it becomes difficult for Courts to decipher genuine cases from false and fabricated ones. In such circumstances, the Trial Court was forced to ask the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police to inquire the matter.”

No violation of rules, no civil consequences—remarks are based on emerging facts

Naresh Kumar also relied on Rule 6, Chapter 1, Part H of Volume III of the High Court Rules, which cautions judges from making adverse remarks against police or public officials. But the High Court held that the rule applies to defective investigations, not cases where prima facie a police officer may have colluded in fabricating evidence.

“The present case is entirely different... it is not where the Trial Court has commented on a police officer’s investigatory conduct. It’s about his suspected involvement in a possible extortion racket,” the judgment noted.

Dismissing the petition, the Court declared: “The petitioner is part of a disciplined force. If he has helped file false rape cases to extort money, it’s a serious issue warranting inquiry.

“Petitioner will get full opportunity in the inquiry—remarks alone do not warrant interference,” concludes the High Court
In the end, the Court found that the petition was “bereft of merit”, and the direction for inquiry did not violate any law or principle of natural justice. The Judge emphasized that the Trial Court’s remarks did not result in any punishment or stigma, and the petitioner would be given a full chance to defend himself if and when any inquiry is initiated.

Date of Decision: March 5, 2025