The Delhi High Court ruled that false rape cases cause irreversible damage to the accused, including loss of reputation, liberty, and mental health, which cannot be undone by mere discharge. The Court directed recovery of interim victim compensation in cases where rape allegations are withdrawn or found false, warning against misuse of public funds and erosion of trust in justice for genuine victims.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court dismissed the State’s challenge to an order discharging all accused persons in a rape and poisoning case, holding that no prima facie case survived once the prosecutrix herself withdrew the allegations in a voluntary judicial statement.
The case arose from an FIR registered on 21 January 2023 at PS Vivek Vihar under Sections 328 and 376 IPC. The prosecutrix initially alleged that the accused had lured her with a promise of employment, taken her to a flat in Noida, and sexually assaulted her along with two others. Based on this complaint, investigation was conducted, medical examination was carried out, and a chargesheet was filed.
However, a crucial turn came when the prosecutrix’s statement was recorded under Section 164 CrPC before a Magistrate. In that statement, she completely retracted her allegations and stated that her physical relationship with accused was consensual. She further clarified that the other accused were present with their respective girlfriends and had committed no offence. She also stated that she did not wish to pursue the case further.
The Trial Court, after considering this categorical judicial statement and subsequent conduct of the prosecutrix, discharged all the accused. The State challenged this discharge before the High Court, arguing that contradictions between FIR and later statements could not justify discharge at the charge stage and that medical evidence and pending forensic reports supported prosecution.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma reiterated the settled legal position that at the stage of framing charge, the court is only required to see whether material on record raises a strong or grave suspicion against the accused. The Court relied on Supreme Court precedent and quoted:
“…At the stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the material and form an opinion whether there is strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which if put to trial, could prove his guilt. The framing of charge is not a stage, at which stage the final test of guilt is to be applied. Thus, to hold that at the stage of framing the charge, the court should form an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is to hold something which is neither permissible nor is in consonance with the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure.”
The Court also discussed the argument of the State that contradictions between FIR and later statements cannot automatically lead to discharge, referring to Hazrat Deen v. State of Uttar Pradesh. At the same time, the Court clarified that where the prosecutrix herself fully exonerates the accused in a voluntary Magistrate-recorded statement, the foundation of the prosecution case collapses.
Relying on Delhi High Court decisions such as State v. Gajraj Singh, 2017 and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sahil Chopra, 2025, the Court observed:
“…The present is not a case where there are some material changes or improvements or differences from the statements on the basis of which FIR was registered and recorded under Sections 161 Cr. P.C. Statements under Section 164 Cr. P.C. were recorded by the Magistrate after verifying the voluntariness of both the prosecutrix to make the statements and that they were under no threat or coercion.”
The Court further noted that the prosecutrix appeared before the Trial Court at the stage of charge and reaffirmed that her Section 164 CrPC statement reflected the true version. There was no allegation of pressure, coercion, or threat at any stage.
In strong observations, the Court held that continuing prosecution in such circumstances would amount to harassment of the accused and abuse of the criminal justice system. It observed that false rape allegations cause irreversible damage to reputation, liberty, and mental health of accused persons, while also harming genuine victims by creating public distrust.
The judgment recorded:
“The duty of the Court is to ensure a fair trial, and fairness in criminal jurisprudence does not mean justice to the victim alone, but justice to all parties who stand before the Court.”
The Court also highlighted that filing false complaints may attract Sections 182 and 211 IPC, though it refrained from directing immediate action, leaving it open to the State or accused to proceed as per law.
A significant part of the judgment dealt with misuse of victim compensation schemes. The Court examined the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018, framed pursuant to Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, and noted that in many cases compensation is taken and later allegations are withdrawn without recovery of public funds.
The Court warned:
“Such situations though uncalled for, do arise and to avoid misuse of public funds, relevant provisions of recovering back the compensation, which are there in the ‘Scheme’, must be made alive.”
The High Court issued directions mandating that Trial Courts must inform DSLSA whenever rape cases are quashed on compromise or victims turn hostile, and that all quashing petitions must disclose whether victim compensation was received.
Ultimately, the Delhi High Court dismissed the State’s revision petition and upheld the discharge of all accused, finding no illegality or perversity in the Trial Court’s order.
Explanatory Table of Laws & Sections Involved
| Law/Section | Explanation | How It Applied in This Case |
| Section 376 IPC | Punishment for rape | Accused were initially charged, but discharged after prosecutrix admitted no rape occurred |
| Section 328 IPC | Causing hurt by poison or intoxicant | Allegation failed once prosecutrix withdrew entire version |
| Section 182 IPC | Giving false information to a public servant | Court noted applicability in false cases but did not initiate action |
| Section 211 IPC | False charge of offence | Court observed that false rape complaints may attract this provision |
| Section 164 CrPC | Statement before Magistrate | Prosecutrix gave a voluntary statement saying relationship was consensual and no offence took place |
| Section 161 CrPC | Police statement during investigation | Initial allegations were made at this stage |
| Section 357A CrPC | Victim Compensation Scheme | Court discussed misuse and recovery of compensation in false cases |
| Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018 | Compensation and recovery mechanism | Court issued directions to ensure recovery when allegations are false |
Case Summary
- Case Title: State of GNCT of Delhi vs Toshib alias Paritosh & Ors., CRL.REV.P. 772/2024
- Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
- Bench: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
- Dates:
- Judgment Reserved On: 01.12.2025
- Judgment Pronounced On: 15.12.2025
- Judgment Uploaded On: 20.12.2025
- Counsel for Petitioner (State): Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State Along with SI Sumeet Poonia
- Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Lokesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate
Key Takeaways
- A voluntary Section 164 CrPC statement can legally dismantle a rape case if the woman herself admits consent and absence of offence.
- Criminal trials cannot continue merely to “test” allegations when the prosecutrix fully exonerates the accused without alleging pressure or coercion.
- False rape allegations cause irreversible damage to men’s liberty, reputation, mental health, and family life—discharge does not undo that harm.
- Misuse of sexual offence laws weakens genuine cases and creates public distrust, hurting real victims in the long run.
- Victim compensation is not free money—when allegations collapse, recovery of public funds is legally justified and necessary to stop abuse of the system.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.