Contradictions in Complainant’s Statements Not a Ground to Quash FIR: Delhi High Court Refuses to Quash Cross-FIR in Transgender Harassment Case

“Inconsistencies and Improvements Are Trial Matters – Prima Facie Satisfaction Is Sufficient at Summoning Stage” - Delhi High Court refused to quash a cross-FIR and summoning order in a case involving serious allegations of assault, harassment, and gender-based targeting of a transgender individual. Justice Ravinder Dudeja emphatically held that, “the defence of the petitioners has to be tested during the course of the trial”, and that “contradictions in witness statements cannot be a ground for quashing at this stage.”

The Court was dealing with a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash FIR No. 389/2023 and the charge sheet dated 21.11.2023, along with the summoning order dated 20.06.2024 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Courts.

This matter gained legal significance as it raised critical issues about the invocation of inherent powers to quash FIRs in cases involving cross-complaints and the evidentiary threshold required at the stage of summoning, particularly where one of the parties belongs to the transgender community.

“Only Prima Facie Case Is Required at Summoning – Evidence Evaluation Reserved for Trial”

At the heart of the dispute were two FIRs arising out of the same incident dated 20.08.2023 between neighbouring residents in Hargovind Enclave, Chhatarpur, Delhi. FIR No. 388/2023 was lodged by the petitioners, alleging physical assault, transphobic abuse, and sexual harassment by respondents No. 2 to 4. The petitioners contended that in retaliation, a cross-FIR (No. 389/2023) was deliberately filed against them with false allegations, which eventually led to the Magistrate taking cognizance and issuing summons.

The petitioners argued that the cross-complaint was replete with “serious contradictions, embellishments, and deliberate improvements”, pointing to inconsistencies between the initial complaint, the Section 161 CrPC statement, and the Section 164 CrPC statement of respondent No. 2. The petitioners further alleged that the charge sheet failed to provide any corroborative medical evidence or material proof such as torn clothing or video footage as claimed.

They further asserted that “the FIR is nothing but a retaliatory counterblast intended to frustrate the proceedings initiated by the petitioners in their own FIR”, invoking Category 7 of the Bhajan Lal guidelines relating to cases instituted with mala fide intent.

However, the Court dismissed these contentions, holding that “contradictions or embellishments in witness statements, however glaring, are matters for trial and not for quashing”. It noted that “the petitioners seek an appreciation of facts and evidence that is not within the permissible jurisdiction of the High Court at this pre-trial stage.”

“Power Under Section 482 CrPC Cannot Be Invoked to Short-Circuit Legitimate Prosecution”

The Court extensively relied on the well-established principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and reiterated that the extraordinary power to quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC must be sparingly exercised and only in exceptional circumstances.

Justice Dudeja observed: “While considering a petition seeking quashing of an FIR or charge sheet, the Court must take into consideration the allegations made in the FIR or charge sheet at face value to determine if they prima facie constitute an offence… The extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer arbitrary jurisdiction to the Court to act according to its whims and caprice.”

The Court acknowledged that although the petitioners raised valid concerns about inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements, “those are precisely the issues that must be subjected to scrutiny during trial.” It refused to interfere merely because the statements lacked internal consistency or were not supported by immediate medical or documentary evidence.

The judgment relied on Ramesh Chandra Gupta v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1634, affirming that “quashing is only appropriate when the FIR and the supporting evidence, even if accepted as true, do not show that any offence has been committed.”

In applying the test of prima facie satisfaction, the Court cited Aniruddha Khanwalkar v. Sharmila Das & Ors., SLP (Criminal) No. 10746/2023, holding:

“At the stage of summoning, the Court is not required to examine whether the allegations are likely to result in conviction or whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the charge. The Court is only to assess whether there is material which discloses a prima facie case.”

“No Illegality or Perversity in Magistrate’s Order – Trial Must Proceed”

Refusing to quash the summoning order dated 20.06.2024 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, the High Court held:

“There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 20.06.2024 passed by the learned trial court… On the basis of the charge sheet and supporting documents, the learned Magistrate rightly took cognizance and issued summons to the accused.”

The Court also noted a significant aspect of the summoning order wherein the Magistrate observed:

“As per the report of the IO, the accused Atharva Chaudhary @ Sapna is still undergoing sex reassignment surgery and the same has not been completed yet… Section 354 IPC has not been invoked as both the accused persons are female for the purposes of law as it now stands.”

This remark underscores the evolving legal understanding of gender identity and how it interacts with statutory provisions under IPC in determining the applicable charges.

Summing up, the Delhi High Court reiterated that the jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC must not be exercised to prematurely terminate legitimate criminal proceedings unless the allegations are absurd or wholly devoid of merit.

The Court concluded: “In the present case, from a bare perusal of the cross-FIR and the charge sheet, prima facie, there is sufficient material for proceeding against the petitioners… At this stage, the Court is not to look into the contradictions and improvements in the statements of witnesses… They have to be considered in the light of the evidence led during the trial.”

The petition was accordingly dismissed, leaving it to the trial court to adjudicate the case on merits.

Date of Decision: 14th October 2025