In Rahul v. State of UP & Anr., SC held that there is no inflexible rule that a plea of alibi can be considered only during trial. Where the accused relies on unimpeachable and undisputed official documents conclusively establishing his absence from the place of occurrence, such material can be examined by High Court at the threshold while quashing the case.

The case arose from the death of Anshul @ Payal, who married Rahul, a BSF personnel, on April 21, 2014. On June 13, 2016, her father lodged an FIR alleging that Rahul and his family subjected her to cruelty and harassment over a demand for a Tata Safari car, and killed her by hanging when demand was not fulfilled. An FIR was lodged u/s 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The inquest recorded that both the main entrance of the house and room where she was found hanging were locked from inside. The post-mortem attributed death to asphyxia resulting from ante-mortem hanging.

However, at the relevant time, Rahul was posted on official duty away from Meerut and certificate issued by his Commandant showed that he remained at Shillong and proceeded to Delhi one day after the alleged incident.

Rahul approached Allahabad HC seeking quashing of chargesheet and criminal proceedings. But High Court declined to interfere, holding that alibi was a disputed question of fact to be established at trial and refused to examine the official service records at the threshold. Meanwhile, Rahul’s parents, who faced trial on the same allegations, were acquitted by Sessions Court.

Rahul filed an appeal in Supreme Court and it reiterated that while deciding a quashing petition, courts must not ignore unimpeachable material directly demonstrating that continuation of prosecution would amount to an abuse of process.

Relying on Bhajan Lal and Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, Court applied the four-step test for considering defence material before trial.

Court found the service record significant as it was an official record maintained in the ordinary course of duty by Armed Forces, available from the earliest stage of investigation, and never alleged by prosecution to be forged, fabricated or unreliable. Such unimpeached material, Court held, “calls for consideration even at the threshold.”

Supreme Court also considered medical and circumstantial evidence. The post-mortem recorded ante-mortem hanging and found no abrasions, defensive wounds or injuries indicating resistance, restraint or physical assault. Court further noted that prosecution’s case against Rahul substantially rested on the same evidence which had already failed to secure conviction of his parents.

Ultimately, SC concluded that all four requirements of the Rajiv Thapar test were satisfied: service certificate was sound and unimpeachable, substantially ruled out Rahul’s presence at the place of occurrence, its authenticity and contents were never disputed, and continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

Accordingly, SC allowed Rahul’s appeal and quashed the FIR, chargesheet and all consequential criminal proceedings against him.