An allegation of rape can have some of the most serious implications of criminal law — social stigma, career destruction, and even the potential of life imprisonment, before any of the facts are examined in court. The law has rightly enacted rigorous safeguards for the real survivors of sexual violence, but Indian criminal jurisprudence also acknowledges that the act of committing sexual violence can be used as a weapon, in the context of fractured relationships, property disputes, or extortion. Indian law has a multi-layered framework of protection for a man who is allegedly raped, but sees no evidence to suggest that he was misled to lodge a false FIR: pre-arrest protection, quashing of the First Information Report (FIR), prosecution of a false complainant, civil defamation, criminal defamation, and statutory compensation on acquittal.1

ANALYSIS

1. Anticipatory Bail

The first line of defence where an FIR has been filed but no arrest has been made is the bail issued under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) or Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”). In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court warned of mechanical arrests, and mandated that magistrates provide reasons for authorising further arrest, which they do in sexual-offence cases where the accusations are delayed or incongruous.2

2. Quashing of FIR

The High Court has the inherent power to quash an FIR under its inherent power when there is no offence disclosed on its face or it is a mere abuse of process: Section 482 of the CrPC (now Section 528 of the BNSS).

Application of the power to quash the FIR has since been made subject to a more rigorous four-part test: the material on which application is based should be unimpeachable, uncontroverted and should be adequate to throw down the foundational pillars of the accusation.3

The earlier decision of Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra4 has set a precedent to quash an FIR for rape on the basis of lack of consent as the relationship was clearly consensual, and the Court has reiterated the distinction between a genuine false promise (which renders consent null and void) and a promise which was not later able to be fulfilled due to reasons unrelated to deceit in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra.5

3. Prosecuting the False Complainant

Indian law allows for a comeback for an accused once he/she is acquitted or the FIR is quashed as false:

• The IPC Section 211, now BNS Section 248, is referred to as filing false charge with intent to injure.
• Providing false information to a public servant – Section 182 IPC (now Section 217 BNS).
• False evidence/ perjury — Section 227 BNS which is subject of prosecution under a complaint before the Magistrate as provided for under Section 200 of the BNSS.

These provisions impose a higher standard than a mere acquittal for lack of evidence: that the accused must affirmatively prove that the complaint was “not only unproven, but also fake and malicious.

4. Defamation

If the false accusation caused substantial damages to the accused’s reputation and/or career, criminal defamation under Section 499/500 IPC (now Section 356 of the BNS) and civil claim of damages for mental agony, loss of livelihood and reputation injury under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be pursued.

5. The 5th one is a Statutory Compensation on Acquittal

Section 250 (now Section 273 of the BNSS) of the CrPC allows a Magistrate, after recording a finding that a complaint was false and vexatious, to award compensation to the person the complaint is made against, the complainant to pay. Such remedy is discretionary and generally only sought when it is clear from the record of the completed proceeding that the accusation is false.

• 1 Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 S.C.C. 608 (India).
  2 Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 S.C.C. 273 (India).
  3 State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) S.C.C. 335 (India).
  4 Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 S.C.C. OnLine S.C. (India).
  5 Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 S.C.C. 608 (India).

CONCLUSION

Although the Indian criminal justice system was meant to safeguard the rights of the victim of sexual violence, it has some safeguards against misuse. It is pertinent to note that an accused who feels that the case against him is a fake is not powerless: anticipatory bail can be applied for as soon as the case is made out against him and the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS allows to quash a case which does not make any sense; further, once an accused is vindicated, he has a remedy under the criminal law, civil law and compensatory law against the complainant.

The common feature of all these remedies is the burden of proof: the accused must maintain a contemporaneous record of the grievance(s) (in the form of call logs, messages, medical reports, witness statements, etc.), encompassing the claims made to be false, as Indian courts take a dim view of the quashing of sexual offence FIRs.

The most important step towards obtaining these remedies, is to hire a criminal lawyer as early as possible, not after arrest.