Quashing Cannot Become a Mini-Trial: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Halt Rape Case Linked to ‘Exorcism’ and Blackmail

“Delay, consent, or enmity are matters of trial — serious allegations cannot be stifled at the threshold”, In a strongly worded ruling, the Allahabad High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a man accused of raping a woman under the guise of exorcism and subsequently blackmailing her with objectionable videos. Justice Avnish Saxena held that where allegations disclose “serious and triable offences,” the Court’s inherent powers cannot be invoked to short-circuit prosecution.

“The power under Section 482 CrPC or Section 528 BNSS is not meant to evaluate evidence or conduct a mini-trial,” the Court observed while dismissing the plea.

Allegation of Assault Under the Guise of ‘Prasad’

The case stems from an FIR lodged in February 2024, relating to an incident dating back to February 2022. The victim alleged that the accused, posing as an exorcist, called her to his residence on the pretext of treating her two-year-old son.

She was allegedly given ‘Prasad’ laced with a stupefying substance, after which she lost consciousness. Upon regaining her senses, she found her clothes open and suspected sexual assault.

“Abuse of faith and vulnerability for sexual exploitation strikes at the very core of criminal law,” the Court noted, emphasising the gravity of the allegations.

Repeated Assaults Backed by Blackmail

According to the prosecution, the accused had recorded objectionable videos and photographs of the victim and used them to threaten her into repeated sexual acts.

Statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC reiterated that the victim was coerced into continued sexual relations under fear of the videos being made public.

The Court found that the existence of such material—produced even by the accused in his own affidavit—lent prima facie support to the prosecution.

“Possession of such material raises serious questions which can only be examined during trial,” the Bench held.

Defence of Consent and Delay Rejected at Threshold

The accused argued that the FIR was false, motivated by family enmity, and filed with delay. He also claimed a consensual relationship and pointed to alleged financial transactions with the victim’s family.

The Court, however, refused to entertain these defences at the quashing stage.

“Questions of consent, delay, or alleged monetary dealings are matters of evidence — they cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482,” the Court clarified.

It further held that delay in lodging the FIR, particularly in cases involving sexual offences, cannot by itself be a ground to discard the prosecution at inception.

“Rarest of Rare” Standard Reaffirmed

Reiterating settled law, the Court emphasised that inherent powers to quash proceedings must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances.

“Such jurisdiction is to prevent abuse of process, not to prematurely terminate legitimate prosecution,” the Court observed, relying on Bhajan Lal, Som Mittal, and recent Supreme Court precedents.

The Bench concluded that the present case clearly disclosed a prima facie offence and involved multiple disputed questions of fact requiring full trial.

Trial to Proceed

Holding that the case did not fall within the narrow parameters for quashing, the Court dismissed the application and allowed the criminal proceedings to continue.

“Where the factual matrix reveals a cognizable offence supported by material, the Court cannot stifle prosecution at the threshold,” the judgment concluded.

Date of Decision: 18/03/2026