False Rape Case Gangs Of Women Extorting Money Across Multiple States: P&H High Court Suggests National Database To Track Habitual Complainants

Can repeated complaints across different States remain invisible to investigators until more people face criminal cases? The Punjab & Haryana High Court has now suggested a national-level database for antecedents in cases involving allegations of repeated or habitual complaints.

CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to a woman in a case involving allegations that multiple false rape cases were registered in Punjab and Delhi as part of an alleged conspiracy to extort money from the persons accused in those cases.

The Court also raised a larger concern about repeated complaints being filed across different jurisdictions and suggested considering a national-level portal or database for sharing relevant antecedents with investigating agencies.

The order was passed by Justice Sanjay Vashisth on September 8, 2026.

The second regular bail petition was filed under Section 483 of the BNSS in FIR No. 0011 dated August 8, 2023, registered at State Crime Police Station, SAS Nagar, Mohali. The FIR contains several allegations relating to criminal conspiracy, extortion, cheating, false information and forgery under the IPC, along with their corresponding BNS provisions.

According to the case record, an investigation by the AIG, Crime Zone, Amritsar allegedly revealed that one another co-accused woman, in connivance with the petitioner, got multiple cases registered in Punjab and Delhi with the alleged purpose of extorting money by making false rape allegations against individuals.

The status report placed before the High Court referred to four rape-related FIRs. In the first, the untraced cancellation report was accepted by the District Court. In the second, the accused was acquitted on November 6, 2023. In the third, the accused was declared innocent by the trial court.

The fourth case, registered in Delhi, was still pending. Thus, the record before the Court itself showed serious consequences for men named in repeated criminal proceedings, while the outcomes of three of the four cases had already included cancellation, acquittal or a finding of innocence.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that she had remained in custody since March 13, 2024, for approximately two years and five months. It was also pointed out that co-accused Rohit Sehgal had earlier been granted bail and was subsequently declared innocent during the investigation. Another co-accused, had also been granted bail after spending approximately one year and three months in custody. The earlier order recorded that all the offences involved were triable by a Magistrate.

Another important factor was the slow progress of the trial. Out of 30 prosecution witnesses, only two had been examined and one had been given up. The defence therefore argued that the trial was unlikely to finish soon. The State opposed the bail plea and maintained that the allegations were serious, including alleged connivance in getting multiple cases registered on false allegations for the purpose of extorting money from the alleged victims.

After considering the long period of custody, bail granted to the co-accused, the subsequent declaration of innocence concerning one co-accused, the Magistrate-triable nature of the offences and the slow examination of witnesses, the High Court concluded that the trial was likely to take considerable time. Without commenting on the merits of the allegations, it allowed the petition and ordered the petitioner to be released on regular bail, subject to the required bail and surety bonds.

The most significant part of the order came before the Court disposed of the matter. Looking beyond the individual bail plea, Justice Vashisth addressed the difficulty investigators may face when allegations of repeated or habitual complaints arise across different jurisdictions.

The Court observed:

"With the advancement of technology, means of communication have evolved substantially and have facilitated the sharing of information across jurisdictions. In cases involving allegations of repeated or habitually filing of complaints, particularly where the antecedents of the complainant or the accused may have relevance, there is a need to consider whether a suitable national-level portal or database can be developed wherein such antecedents, subject to appropriate safeguards and verification, may be made available to the concerned investigating agencies."

The Court further explained that such a system could allow investigating agencies across the country to know about relevant previous proceedings and, wherever legally permissible, place that information before the competent court. At the same time, the Court specifically stressed the need for safeguards, verification and protection of individual rights and privacy.

The observation assumes particular importance in cases where different men may face serious criminal allegations in separate cities or States, while the investigating agency in one jurisdiction may have no immediate knowledge of the complainant's involvement in earlier proceedings elsewhere. A properly safeguarded national mechanism could therefore help investigators identify legally relevant patterns without treating any person as a habitual or false complainant merely because previous complaints exist.

The High Court made it clear that its observations should not be treated as an opinion on the merits of the pending criminal case. The trial court was directed to decide the matter independently on the evidence available on record, in accordance with law, and as expeditiously as possible.

The petition was accordingly disposed of.

EXPLANATORY TABLE - LAWS & SECTIONS MENTIONED

CASE DETAILS

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Multiple men faced rape cases allegedly filed with an ulterior motive of extorting money.
• One case was cancelled, one ended in acquittal, and another man was declared innocent.
• A false rape allegation can itself become punishment through arrest, litigation, stigma and years of trial.
• Cross-State complaints can hide a pattern if investigating agencies cannot see earlier proceedings.
• A national database could be a major safeguard, provided verification, privacy and due process are strictly protected.