Supreme Court of India· 11 August 2026

What categories from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal did the Supreme Court apply to quash the proceedings in this case?

RAHUL v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

2026 INSC 825 · Criminal Appeal No. [not yet numbered] of 2026 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 2939 of 2026)
Coram: Augustine George Masih; Sanjay Karol

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow s.482 Code of Criminal Procedure…📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

The Court held the case fell within the categories where the allegations, even taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute an offence; where the uncontroverted allegations and evidence collected do not disclose the commission of any offence; and where continuation of the proceedings amounts to an abuse of the process of the court, categories which this Court reiterated are illustrative and not exhaustive.

Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.482 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.304-B — Quashing of criminal proceedings — Abuse of process — Plea of alibi — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.482 — Alibi distinguished from a threshold legal challenge — Held: A threshold legal challenge founded on admitted, unimpeachable official material that ex facie demolishes the prosecution case is distinct from an ordinary disputed plea of alibi requiring evidentiary appreciation at trial, and may be examined in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482. (¶12, 31) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.482 — Rajiv Thapar four-step test satisfied — Held further: Where the material relied upon by the accused is of sterling and impeccable quality, rules out the factual assertions in the complaint, has not been refuted by the prosecution, and its continuation would result in an abuse of process, the four-step test for quashment is satisfied. (¶19, 35) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.304-B — Acquittal of co-accused on identical evidence — Held further: While acquittal of a co-accused on an identical body of evidence does not automatically exonerate a differently situated co-accused, where no distinguishing evidence exists and the evidence relied upon is the very same evidence found insufficient to sustain a conviction of the co-accused, continuation of the trial does not further the cause of justice. (¶33, 34) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.482 — Proceedings quashed as abuse of process — Held further: On a cumulative reading of the unimpeached documentary record and the result of the connected trial on identical evidence, continuation of the prosecution against the appellant amounts to an abuse of the process of the court; the appeal is allowed and all proceedings are quashed insofar as they concern the appellant. (¶36, 37)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 17The contours of the power to quash an F.I.R. or criminal proceedings are well settled. In Bhajan Lal (supra) case, this Court, while cautioning that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and in the rarest of rare cases, laid down illustrative categories in which such power may be exercised. The relevant categories as relied upon in the present case are as follows:

Paragraph 35In light of the foregoing facts and circumstances, and the analysis of the legal precedents referred to above, this Court is of the view that the four-steps as laid down in the case of Rajiv Thapar (supra) are satisfied in the present case. The service certificate is not disputed as a document, its issuing authority is not questioned, nor are its contents disputed. Where the unimpeached documentary record and the result of a connected trial on identical evidence, taken together, demonstrate that the continuation of the prosecution against the appellant would be a legal exercise in futility, the High Court, and now this Court, would be failing in their duty if they permitted the criminal process to continue merely because a technical prima facie case can be spelt out from the bare averments of the F.I.R. The categories identified in Bhajan Lal (supra) are illustrative and not exhaustive, and the present case falls squarely within the rationale of categories 1, 3 and 6 concerning inherent improbability of the allegations and abuse of the process of the court.

Acts & Sections

s.482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s.304-B Indian Penal Code, 1860s.498-A Indian Penal Code, 1860s.3 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961s.4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961s.11 Indian Evidence Act, 1872Article 136 Constitution of India

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of RAHUL v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, can a court examine at the threshold a defence founded on admitted, unimpeachable official material, or must every plea resembling alibi go to trial?What four-step test governs whether criminal proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC on the basis of defence material?Under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, does an accused’s absence from the place of occurrence on the date of an alleged dowry death, by itself, exonerate him of the charge?Does the acquittal of a co-accused on identical evidence automatically exonerate a differently situated co-accused facing the same charge?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections