Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 10-12-2019 in case of petitioner name ABCD vs Union of India
| |

False Rape Allegations and Judicial Accountability: Supreme Court Issues Contempt Notice

The case of ABCD v. Union of India is a landmark ruling concerning the misuse of criminal law, particularly in cases involving allegations of sexual assault. The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated December 10, 2019, not only dismissed the petitioner’s request to transfer an ongoing rape investigation to a central agency but also issued a contempt notice against the petitioner for making false statements under oath. The ruling emphasizes the significance of ensuring justice for victims while preventing the misuse of legal provisions for personal vendetta.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, referred to as ABCD (identity withheld as per Section 228A of the IPC), had filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking the following reliefs:

  • Transfer of the rape investigation arising from FIR No. 58/2018, registered under Sections 376, 328, 506, and 509 of the IPC, from Delhi Police to an independent central agency.
  • Suspension and initiation of departmental proceedings against the accused, an IPS officer from West Bengal (Respondent No. 7).
  • Transfer of FIR No. 256/2018, registered against the petitioner under Sections 384, 389, and 34 IPC in West Bengal, to an independent agency.
  • Immediate collection of Call Detail Records (CDR) and confiscation of the accused’s mobile phones.
  • Retrieval of CCTV footage from Hotel Lalit, where the alleged incident occurred.
  • Police protection for the petitioner and her family.

Petitioner’s Allegations

The petitioner alleged that she met Respondent No. 7 through Facebook, and they developed a personal relationship with talks of marriage. On January 28, 2018, Respondent No. 7 invited her to his room at Hotel Lalit in Delhi, where he allegedly offered her chocolates. She claimed that after consuming them, she felt dizzy, and the accused took advantage of her condition to sexually assault her. Following this incident, discussions between their families continued regarding marriage, but on February 10, 2018, the accused abruptly ended the relationship, leading her to file a rape complaint on May 26, 2018.

Respondent’s Counter-Allegations

On June 3, 2018, Respondent No. 7’s mother filed FIR No. 256/2018 in West Bengal, alleging that the petitioner and her family were attempting to extort Rs. 15 lakhs by threatening to file a false rape case. She claimed that Rs. 5 lakhs had already been paid to the petitioner’s brother on February 4, 2018, and the remaining amount was to be settled within three months.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Court examined the investigations into both FIRs and found multiple inconsistencies in the petitioner’s claims:

  • The delay in filing the rape complaint (four months after the alleged incident) raised doubts about its authenticity.
  • Despite the petitioner’s claims, no CCTV footage from Hotel Lalit was available since such recordings are stored for only one month.
  • Call Detail Records (CDR) did not support the claim that the accused manipulated the situation.
  • The charge sheet in the rape case had already been filed, making a transfer to a central agency unnecessary.
  • Mobile phone data retrieved by forensic experts from the accused’s devices did not reveal any incriminating evidence.

The Court observed:

“The stream of administration of justice has to remain unpolluted. Anyone who takes recourse to fraud or deceit deflects the course of judicial proceedings and interferes with the administration of justice.”

Petitioner’s False Allegations and the Contempt Notice

During the pendency of the case, the petitioner filed an additional application on October 18, 2019, alleging that she was deliberately hit by a car near Defence Colony, Delhi, as an attempt to silence her. The Court directed the police to investigate, and CCTV footage was analyzed. The footage revealed that:

  • The petitioner was not hit by a car but was grazed by a pushcart (thela) driven by a child.
  • She walked away after the minor incident and later called the police claiming a serious attack.
  • No evidence linked Respondent No. 7 to the incident.

Observing the false statements made by the petitioner, the Court issued a suo motu contempt notice, stating:

“The allegations in her sworn statement before this Court were not truthful. Making a false statement on oath is an offense punishable under Section 181 of the IPC, while furnishing false information with intent to mislead public servants is punishable under Section 182 of the IPC.”

Key Legal Precedents Cited

The Supreme Court referred to several important rulings:

  • Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada – Holding that judicial proceedings must remain free of fraudulent misrepresentations.
  • Pushpadevi M. Jatia v. M.L. Wadhawan – Allowing contempt action when false statements are made before the Court.
  • Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana – Imposing penalties for filing false affidavits in court proceedings.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner’s plea and ruled:

“The investigation into both FIRs does not require transfer to any central agency. The charge sheet in the rape case shall be considered by the trial court on its own merits. However, in light of the false statements made under oath, the Registry is directed to register a suo motu contempt case against the petitioner.”

The Court directed the petitioner to appear in person before the Court on January 14, 2020, to respond to the contempt notice.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for criminal law and judicial integrity:

  • It reinforces the need for truthful statements in judicial proceedings.
  • It sends a strong message that false rape allegations will not be tolerated.
  • It ensures that criminal law is not misused for personal vendetta.
  • It upholds the right of accused persons to a fair investigation and trial.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in ABCD v. Union of India underscores the importance of maintaining credibility in legal proceedings. While recognizing the need for justice in cases of sexual assault, the ruling also ensures that false claims do not undermine genuine cases. By issuing a contempt notice, the Court has taken a firm stance against the misuse of legal provisions and has reinforced the sanctity of the judicial system.


Petitioner Name: ABCD.
Respondent Name: Union of India.
Judgment By: Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Indu Malhotra.
Place Of Incident: Delhi.
Judgment Date: 10-12-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: ABCD vs Union of India Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 10-12-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Contempt Of Court cases
See all petitions in SC/ST Act Case
See all petitions in Judgment by Uday Umesh Lalit
See all petitions in Judgment by Indu Malhotra
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in Stayed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category

Similar Posts