Section 482 CrPC | Court Must 'Read Between The Lines' To Weed Out Inherently Improbable FIRs Crafted As Afterthought: Gujarat High Court

"By reading between the lines the narrative presented in the FIR is unnatural, lacks inherent probability, and stands as an afterthought designed to give a criminal colour to an entirely different domestic situation." Gujarat High Court, in a significant ruling, held that while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), the court is duty-bound to "read in between the lines" and scrutinize attending circumstances rather than restricting itself to a superficial examination of whether statutory ingredients are formally disclosed in an FIR.

A single bench of Justice P. M. Raval quashed criminal proceedings for outraging a woman's modesty under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), observing that prosecuting an accused on the basis of a manifestly implausible and engineered narrative amounts to a gross abuse of the judicial process.

The applicant moved the High Court invoking Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR registered at Nilambaug Police Station, Bhavnagar, along with the subsequent chargesheet and pending criminal case for offences punishable under Sections 354 and 114 IPC. The complainant alleged that the applicant, a neighbour, had stalked her for three months and eventually entered her residence to make unwanted romantic advances, grab her feet, and issue threats. According to the prosecution, the complainant had forewarned her husband to return home at the expected time to catch the applicant red-handed, leading to a scuffle during which the applicant fled and accidentally dropped his mobile phone at the doorstep.

The primary question before the court was whether the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR and chargesheet were inherently improbable and unnatural, rendering the prosecution an abuse of the judicial process. The court was also called upon to determine whether inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC could be exercised to look beyond the drafted averments of an FIR to ascertain if the criminal machinery was set in motion as an afterthought.

Inherent Powers Must Prevent Abuse Of Judicial Process

Justice Raval observed that while the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, the High Court cannot remain a passive spectator when criminal proceedings are manifestly tainted with mala fides. The bench emphasized that where the allegations are inherently improbable or fail to inspire judicial confidence, allowing the prosecution to proceed further would constitute a gross abuse of the process of law.

Complainant's Prolonged Silence Defies Natural Human Conduct

Subjecting the complainant’s allegations to critical scrutiny, the bench noted that the complainant alleged three continuous months of stalking and harassment, yet explained her silence by claiming fear of social stigma and defamation. The court found this explanation irreconcilable with the prosecution’s subsequent theory that the complainant and her husband decided to stage a private ambush instead of reporting the matter to the police.

The bench remarked that if a victim is genuinely living under the terror of an aggressive stalker for months to safeguard her reputation, it defies natural human conduct that she would deliberately withhold police intervention and orchestrate a private trap at her residence.

Pre-Arranged "Trap" Theory Held To Be Inherently Implausible

The court found the narrative of setting a private trap to catch the neighbour red-handed to be fundamentally unnatural and an evident afterthought. The bench noted that a genuine victim of persistent harassment would seek immediate protection from family, society, or law enforcement rather than acting as deliberate bait.

"The deliberate choice to act as a bait, invite the offender into the house, and stage a secret operation with her husband is utterly unnatural, unconvincing, and inconsistent with the behaviour of a genuine victim of harassment."

FIR Concocted To Cover Up Accidental Domestic Confrontation

Evaluating the rival contentions, the High Court observed that the implausibility of the trap theory lent strong credence to the petitioner's defence that the criminal complaint was a counter-blast. The court noted that the husband had unexpectedly discovered the applicant and the complainant together, prompting a fabricated allegation of forced entry and molestation under Section 354 IPC to salvage domestic peace and avoid societal embarrassment.

The bench stressed that when the foundational premise of an FIR relies on a staged confrontation cooked up after an unexpected domestic encounter, pushing the accused through the rigmarole of a full criminal trial lacks judicial justification.

Duty To Read Between The Lines In Vexatious Prosecutions

To substantiate the scope of judicial scrutiny under Section 482 CrPC, Justice Raval placed heavy reliance on the Supreme Court ruling in Mahmood Ali & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2023) 15 SCC 488. The bench reiterated the apex court's principle that when an FIR is filed with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, the complainant will inevitably ensure that it is skillfully drafted with all necessary ingredients to satisfy the statutory test on paper.

The court reiterated that in such cases, judicial review cannot be confined to the mere four corners of the complaint. The bench underscored that the High Court owes a duty to look into the overall attending circumstances emerging from the record and, with due circumspection, read between the lines to unmask frivolous or vexatious prosecutions.

Proceedings Squarely Covered Under Bhajan Lal Principles

Applying the parameters enunciated by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the bench concluded that the narrative presented by the complainant was unnatural, completely lacked inherent probability, and was orchestrated to give a criminal colour to an entirely different domestic situation.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition, made the rule absolute, and quashed the FIR, the chargesheet, and the consequential criminal case pending before the magistrate.

The ruling reinforces the settled principle that criminal courts exercising Section 482 CrPC jurisdiction must look beyond clever pleadings to prevent abuse of the process where the factual narrative is inherently improbable and contrary to ordinary human behaviour. By quashing the Section 354 IPC proceedings, the High Court affirmed that manufactured criminal complaints arising as afterthoughts to manage domestic fallout cannot withstand judicial scrutiny.

Date of Decision: 12 October 2026