The Supreme Court’s decision to quash the FIR against the NRI man marks a strong judicial stance against the misuse of legal provisions, particularly in cases involving false allegations of sexual assault made under the pretext of failed relationships.
The apex court’s judgment was unambiguous in its findings. After examining the evidence — including cross-examinations, multiple FIRs, and especially WhatsApp chats — the court concluded that the woman's accusations were "fabricated, malicious and unsubstantiated". Notably, the chats showed that she admitted to being manipulative and motivated by the desire to secure a relationship with a “green card holder”, revealing her intentions were far from genuine.
The court was equally critical of her repeated pattern of filing rape complaints. It took note of her earlier similar allegation against a university professor, highlighting what it saw as a vindictive behavioural pattern. This historical context further undermined the credibility of her claims in the present case.
The key point the court made was that the man’s decision to back out of the marriage was justified, particularly after witnessing what the court described as the woman’s “aggressive sexual behaviour and obsessive nature”. It ruled that continuing the prosecution would be a “travesty of justice”, effectively safeguarding the rights of the falsely accused.
This verdict also sends a clear message about the seriousness of false accusations and their consequences — not just on the individual but on the credibility of genuine survivors. It reaffirms the need for courts to balance sensitivity towards victims of sexual violence with protection for individuals against abuse of the legal system.
In summary, the ruling is significant because:
-
It reinforces judicial intolerance for misuse of rape laws.
-
It affirms the right of the falsely accused to be protected from vindictive litigation.
-
It warns against the weaponization of identity-based allegations (like caste) without evidence.
-
It supports a fact-based judicial approach, especially in emotionally and socially charged cases.
