Introduction
In Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025), decided on September 2, 2025, the Supreme Court of India laid down a well-defined, four-step test for high courts to use when considering whether a criminal complaint based on a false promise of marriage should be quashed. This case is now treated as a landmark decision under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and under the new BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) regime, where the equivalent power is under Section 528.
What Is a “False Promise of Marriage” in Criminal Law?
A false promise of marriage occurs when one person induces someone into a sexual relationship by promising marriage but from the very outset had no intention of fulfilling that promise. In legal terms, the key issue is intent: whether the promise was genuine or merely a device to obtain consent. Mere breach of a promise made in good faith, which becomes impossible later, does not necessarily amount to criminal deceit. What matters in complaints involving rape allegations is whether deceit or fraudulent intent was present from the beginning, thereby vitiating consent.
Why Such Complaints Raise Complex Legal Issues
- Proof of intention: Establishing what was in the mind of the accused when the promise was made is difficult. Courts require evidence showing mala fide motive from the outset.
- Delay in lodging complaint: In Kesarwani, the alleged incidents date back to 2010, but the complaint was filed in 2014. Four years of delay raised serious questions about memory, credibility, and whether the accused was given a fair opportunity to respond.
- Details and specificity:The Supreme Court flagged that the complaint in Kesarwani lacked essential particulars—many allegations were vague, without precise dates or places for incidents. That weakens the foundation of the claim.
- Abuse of process & reputation risks: The Court emphasised that frivolous or vexatious complaints damage not just the accused (in terms of reputation and legal costs) but also court resources and public confidence. Where claims appear fabricated or without basis, continuing proceedings may be a misuse of the judicial process.
Recent SC Judgment: Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani vs. State of UP
Here are the facts and legal findings in Kesarwani:
- Complainant’s allegations: The private complaint was filed on August 11, 2014, for offences including rape (IPC Section 376), unnatural sex (Section 377), assault, and caste-atrocity, allegedly committed starting in 2010.
- Summoning order: The Magistrate issued summons under Section 376, among others. The High Court declined to annul the summoning order issued under Section 482 of the CrPC.
- SC findings: The Supreme Court held that the complaint did not inspire confidence. The Court noted the long delay and vague or missing particulars (dates/places of incidents) and also remarked that the complainant did not accept the notice from the Supreme Court. These factors cumulatively indicated that the complaint might be more a misuse of the law than a genuine claim.
- Verdict: Applying the four-step test, the Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings. The High Court’s order refusing quashing was set aside, and the summoning order was quashed.
Understanding the Four-Step Test in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani vs. State of U.P.
When the Supreme Court delivered its judgement in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. on 2 September 2025, it addressed something many lawyers and victims alike find troubling: when can we stop legal proceedings that are based on allegations of rape due to a promise of marriage — especially if that promise was false from the start?
The Court, with Justices JB Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta, decided that High Courts must follow a four-tiered test to protect both complainants and accused from misuse of the legal system. Let’s walk through how the Court described each stage and how they applied them in this very case.
1. Is the accused’s evidence strong, clear, and indisputable from the start?
The first question is whether the materials that the accused brings forward are powerful. The materials should be strong enough to cast serious doubt on the complainant's story, if accepted. The materials should be of high quality — credible, unambiguous, and not just hearsay or vague claims.
In Kesarwani, the Court looked at things like, 'Were there specific dates?' Precise incidents? Did the complainant mention places, names, and times clearly? Were there corroborations? The absence of many such particulars made the allegations less reliable.
2. If we accept the accused’s evidence, does it shake the foundation of the complaint?
It’s not enough to have strong evidence alone. Next, the Court asks: “If we believe the accused’s material, does it negate or seriously weaken the core of what is alleged?” In other words, does it make the allegations improbable such that a reasonable person could say the complaint is not likely to succeed as is?
In Kesarwani, the delays, vague allegations, and lack of clarity about essential facts made the Court conclude that the complaint, if viewed in light of the accused’s evidence, was far from solid.
3. Has the complainant/prosecution refuted that evidence—or is it hard to do so?
Even if the accused presents strong and potentially case-destroying material, there must be an opportunity for the complainant or the prosecution to respond or counter. If they haven’t, or if their counter is weak or unreasonable, that works in favour of quashing.
In Kesarwani, there was no strong counter-evidence offered for many of the crucial claims; there was poor explanation for delay; notice from the Supreme Court wasn’t accepted by the complainant, which indicated lesser seriousness or inconsistency.
4. Would continuing the case be an abuse of process? Does it serve justice?
Even when the above three conditions are met, the final question is whether the trial or continuing proceedings would be fair or just or whether they would just cause unnecessary harassment, waste court time, damage reputation, etc. If the case is weak from the outset, causing a needless judicial burden or dragging the accused through an ordeal, then the courts must protect against that.
In Kesarwani, with all the identified defects (delay, vague allegations, poor particulars, etc.), the Supreme Court held that continuing proceedings would amount to misuse of law and a gross abuse of process. It quashed the case
Why This Ruling Matters for “False Promise of Marriage” Cases
This decision marks a significant shift in the way Indian courts handle rape allegations stemming from false promises of marriage. Before Kesarwani, the legal principles were less uniformly applied: sometimes cases with similar facts were allowed to proceed. Now, this ruling provides High Courts with a clearer way (the four-step test) under Section 482 CrPC (and its equivalent Section 528 BNSS) to identify complaints that are weak or obviously not serious.</sent
The judgement also sends a strong message: allegations in serious criminal matters must be supported with specifics, timely filing, and corroboration where possible. It protects individuals from false or malicious complaints while still ensuring genuine grievances can be litigated.
Implications for Lawyers & Complainants
Given the new test, here are some practical takeaways for both sides in cases involving false promises of marriage. These are useful to keep in mind for strategy, preparation, and expectations.
| For Lawyers / Defense Counsel | For Complainants / Victims |
|---|---|
| Early collection of strong evidence: Lawyers defending the accused will now emphasize collecting and presenting material that is solid from the start—documents, written communication, contemporaneous evidence, any proof of consensual or non-fraudulent intent. | Document everything: Complainants should try to keep emails, messages, promises, dates, witnesses, any proof that helps establish what was promised and when. Even small details help (dates, places, names). |
| Challenge the delay rigorously: Defense may argue delay in filing the complaint undermines credibility. High Courts will look closely at reasons for delay. | Provide explanation for delay: If there is delay, complainants should be ready with explanation—why they couldn’t complain immediately, if there was fear, social or economic pressure, or lack of access. |
| Scrutiny of complaint’s particulars: Be ready to oppose quashing petitions by arguing that the complaint has sufficient specific particulars (dates, incidents, etc.) and is not vague. | Detail particularities in the complaint: Complainants should ensure that the complaint includes specific dates, place of incidents, nature of promise, any communication, and clearly describe sequence of events. Avoid vagueness. |
| Preparing for quashing petitions: Defense can use this ruling to file quashing petitions under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS early, saving time/cost, if the complaint fails on one of the four steps. | Not to lose hope: Even if defense files quashing petition, complainants should ensure high-quality legal representation to show that their version is refutable, provide every possible corroboration. |
| Judicial awareness & consistency: Lawyers might cite Kesarwani and the four-step test to ensure that Summoning Orders or High Courts follow this framework, otherwise ask for corrective orders. | Awareness of rights and legal standard: Complainants should know that breach of promise ≠ rape; the intention at the beginning matters. If the relationship broke down later, that alone may not suffice. Understanding helps set realistic expectations. |
Conclusion
The Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. judgement marks an important turning point in Indian criminal jurisprudence concerning false marriage promises. With the Supreme Court formally laying down a four-step test under Section 482 CrPC (and Section 528 BNSS), there is now a clearer legal framework for deciding when complaints should be quashed to prevent misuse while still allowing genuine claims to proceed.
This test demands:
- strong, credible evidence from the beginning,
- allegations must be properly framed and not vague,
- the accused’s material must not be easily refuted, and
- Proceeding with the trial must not be unjust or abusive to the process.
For society, victims, and legal professionals, this ruling reinforces the principle that fairness must guide criminal proceedings. It ensures that those who use the law properly are protected—and those who make flimsy allegations are less likely to burden individuals and courts with baseless cases.