Explains the criminal law framework governing rape and related sexual offences under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) ss.63-72 -- how a complaint is registered and investigated, the specific legal protections the law provides to a complainant during that process, and the real, narrow legal remedies available under Indian law to a person who has been named as an accused. This describes what the law provides and what courts have actually held, in both directions, from real judgments. It does not assess the facts of any specific situation or predict how a specific case will be decided.
1. A complaint of rape or a related sexual offence can be made to any police station
Under BNSS s.173, information about a cognizable offence may be given to the officer in charge of any police station, regardless of where the offence occurred. If the police station does not have territorial jurisdiction, a 'Zero FIR' is registered and then transferred to the police station that does. The police officer is bound to register the information; a rape allegation is a cognizable, non-bailable offence under BNS s.64, so no preliminary inquiry precedes registration.
2. The complainant's statement may be recorded at her residence, not compelled to a police station
The second proviso to BNSS s.179(1) (successor to CrPC s.160) provides that a woman cannot be required to attend any place other than her own residence for questioning; an investigating officer records her statement there instead, generally through a woman police officer. Standard operating procedure issued by the Bureau of Police Research and Development further sets out how such statements are recorded sensitively.
3. A judicial statement may be recorded before a Magistrate
BNSS s.183 (successor to CrPC s.164, including the safeguard formerly at s.164(5A)) allows a Magistrate to record the complainant's statement during investigation, which can be used at trial. Courts have described re-recording such a statement as an exception permitted only in genuinely exceptional circumstances (proven coercion, improper recording, or a grave procedural defect), not a routine step.
4. A medical examination follows a specific procedure with the complainant's consent
BNSS s.184 (successor to CrPC s.164A) governs the medical examination of a person alleging rape, to be carried out by a registered medical practitioner with consent. In Lillu @ Rajesh v. State of Haryana, (2013) 14 SCC 643, the Supreme Court held that the 'two-finger test' violates a survivor's right to privacy, physical and mental integrity, and dignity under Article 21, and that a person's past sexual history has no bearing on whether they consented on a given occasion.
5. Investigation of these specific offences carries a statutory two-month deadline
BNSS s.193(2) requires that investigation into offences under BNS ss.64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70 and 71 (and certain POCSO offences) be completed within two months from the date the information was recorded. The complainant is also entitled to be informed of the progress of the investigation.
6. The character or past sexual history of the complainant is not relevant to the question of consent
BSA s.48 (successor to s.53A of the erstwhile Indian Evidence Act, 1872) provides that in a prosecution under BNS ss.64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 76, 77 or 78, where consent is in issue, evidence of the character of the person against whom the offence is alleged, or their previous sexual experience with any person, is not relevant to the issue of consent or its quality.
7. The inquiry and trial are conducted in camera, not in open court
BNSS s.366(2) (successor to CrPC s.327(2)) mandates that the inquiry into and trial of rape and certain related offences be conducted in camera, as far as practicable by a woman Judge or Magistrate. The presiding Judge may permit a specific person access on application, but the default is a closed proceeding. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384, the Supreme Court held that trial courts are obliged to hold such trials in camera and treat the complainant with dignity, not as if she were an accomplice to the offence.
8. Publishing the complainant's identity is a separate criminal offence
BNS s.72 makes it an offence, punishable with imprisonment up to two years and a fine, to print or publish the name or any matter that would reveal the identity of a person against whom an offence under BNS ss.64 to 71 is alleged or found to have been committed. Publication is permitted with the complainant's own written authorisation, or, where they are deceased, a minor, or of unsound mind, with the authorisation of their next of kin, or in specified circumstances with the concerned authority's order.
9. A conviction can rest on the complainant's testimony alone if the court finds it credible
In State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, (1990) 1 SCC 550, the Supreme Court held that a complainant in a sexual-offence case cannot be treated as an accomplice, is a competent witness under the Evidence Act, and that her testimony, if found trustworthy, can by itself sustain a conviction with no legal requirement of independent corroboration. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384, held corroboration to be a rule of prudence in appropriate circumstances, not a rule of law.
10. A delay in reporting the offence does not, by itself, make a complaint unreliable
In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gian Chand, (2001) 6 SCC 71, the Supreme Court held that delay in lodging an FIR in a sexual-offence case is not fatal to the prosecution where it is satisfactorily explained -- recognising that family honour, social stigma, and the trauma of the offence itself commonly cause a complainant to take time before reporting. The prosecution is expected to offer a plausible explanation for the delay.
11. There is generally no limitation period for filing this kind of complaint
BNSS s.514 (successor to CrPC s.468) bars a court from taking cognizance of an offence after a period of limitation has expired, but that bar applies only to offences punishable with a fine only, or with imprisonment not exceeding three years. Because rape under BNS s.64 carries a minimum of ten years' imprisonment, no limitation period applies -- a complaint can, in principle, be made at any time after the alleged offence.
12. A person named in such a complaint may apply for anticipatory bail before arrest
BNSS s.482 (successor to CrPC s.438) allows a person who apprehends arrest to apply to the Sessions Court or High Court for anticipatory bail. Since rape under BNS s.64 is a non-bailable offence, this is discretionary, not automatic. Courts have stated they weigh, among other things, the nature and gravity of the specific accusation, the applicant's antecedents, the risk of the applicant fleeing or influencing the investigation, and whether the accusation itself appears to have been made with intent to injure or humiliate the applicant -- assessed on the facts of each case.
13. Quashing the FIR itself is available only in narrow, specific circumstances
Under BNSS s.528 (successor to CrPC s.482), a High Court may quash an FIR using the categories set out in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 -- for example, where the allegations, even taken at their highest, do not disclose any offence, or where the case is shown to be maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive. Settlement or compromise between the parties has generally NOT been accepted as a valid, standalone ground to quash a rape case: in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Madanlal, (2015) 7 SCC 681, and Shimbhu v. State of Haryana, (2014) 13 SCC 318, the Supreme Court held that rape is an offence against society, not merely the individual, and a compromise cannot be used to quash the case or reduce the sentence. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Court had earlier held that heinous and serious offences of this kind are not ordinarily quashable on the basis of compromise, unlike offences that are civil or commercial in nature. In a more recent decision, Prabhakar v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2025 INSC 819, the Supreme Court quashed a rape FIR based on a settlement, but did so on a specific, unusual set of facts (including the complainant's own unequivocal, voluntary statement that she did not wish to pursue the case), describing this as an exceptional exercise of the Court's power to secure the ends of justice rather than a departure from the general rule that settlement alone does not justify quashing a rape case.
14. Compensation for the complainant is a separate track from the criminal case itself
BNSS s.396 (successor to CrPC s.357A) requires every State to operate a victim compensation scheme, administered through the State/District Legal Services Authority and the trial court. Under NALSA's Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes, 2018, the guided minimum compensation is Rs.4 lakh for rape and Rs.5 lakh for gang rape (with higher amounts where the victim is a minor), though exact quanta are fixed and disbursed under each State's own scheme framed in line with the NALSA guidelines, and may accordingly vary somewhat between States. This compensation is available regardless of whether the case ends in conviction, and even where the accused is not traced.
15. Remedies for a person later shown to have been falsely accused arise only after the criminal case actually concludes
If a criminal case concludes in acquittal, that outcome by itself reflects that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt -- it is not, by itself, a judicial finding that the complaint was false. Where a court does go further and records a specific finding of falsity, two separate, narrower legal routes exist: (1) a civil suit for malicious prosecution, which requires the person to separately prove that the prosecution was initiated without probable cause, was actuated by malice, ended in their favour, and caused them damage (West Bengal SEB v. Dilip Kumar Ray); and (2) a criminal complaint for offences such as giving false evidence in a judicial proceeding (BNS s.229, successor to IPC s.193) or making a false charge with intent to injure (BNS s.248, successor to IPC s.211). Prosecution for false evidence given before a court is generally initiated through a written complaint made by that court itself, under the procedure at BNSS s.379 (successor to CrPC s.340), rather than through an ordinary police complaint filed directly by the accused.
Helpline: 181 (Women Helpline, national, 24x7) / 1091 (Women in Distress) / 112 (Emergency) / 7827170170 (NCW Helpline, 24x7)
Handled by: Local police station (investigation); Sessions Court (trial); District/State Legal Services Authority (compensation); High Court (anticipatory bail, quashing petitions)
Who can use this: A person considering filing, or who has already filed, a complaint of rape or a related sexual offence under BNS ss.63-72; a person who has been named as an accused in such a complaint and wishes to understand the legal process and the options available to them; and anyone seeking a factual understanding of how such a complaint proceeds through the Indian legal system.
This does not cover: This does not cover a sexual offence against a minor (see 'pocso_case' for the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act framework instead). It does not cover, in depth, a complaint centred specifically on a false promise of marriage or abuse of a position of authority without the use of force -- BNS ss.68-69 are noted here only for definitional completeness; see 'sexual_offence_deceit_or_authority' for that narrower scenario. It does not cover ongoing domestic-context abuse or a protection order (see 'domestic_violence_protection' or 'cruelty_by_husband_or_inlaws' for a marital/domestic setting instead). It does not cover the general mechanism for quashing an FIR for offences other than those covered here (see 'false_fir_remedies'), or the general bail framework applicable to any offence (see 'arrest_bail_options') -- this focuses on what is specific to a rape or sexual-assault allegation. This is not for an ongoing safety emergency; Aadhrix's own safety-guidance is triggered separately and immediately whenever a message describes an active threat. Aadhrix does not assess whether a specific allegation is true or false, does not predict the outcome of any case, and does not provide legal representation.
Time limit: Generally no limitation period applies (BNSS s.514) since rape carries imprisonment exceeding three years. A separate two-month statutory deadline applies to completing the investigation (BNSS s.193(2)). (BNSS s.514 (successor to CrPC s.468); BNSS s.193(2); State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gian Chand, (2001) 6 SCC 71)
Cost: No fee to register an FIR. A malicious-prosecution suit attracts standard court fees calculated on damages claimed. Free legal aid is available through the Legal Services Authorities.
You'll need:- Whether an FIR has already been registered, and its date, police station, and FIR number
- The approximate date(s) and location(s) of the alleged incident(s)
- Whether a medical examination has taken place
- The current stage of proceedings (investigation, chargesheet filed, trial, appeal, or concluded)
- Whether any settlement, compromise, or mediation has been proposed or attempted
- The court (if any) in which the matter is pending, and its case/CNR number
Documents that help:- Copy of the FIR
- Medical examination report (MLC), if one exists
- Statement recorded before the Magistrate under BNSS s.183, if recorded
- Chargesheet or final report, if filed
- Any bail or anticipatory bail order
- Judgment or order, if the case has concluded
- Vakalatnama, if an advocate has been engaged
What happens after: After an FIR is registered, the police investigate (with a two-month statutory deadline for these specific offences under BNSS s.193(2)) and file either a chargesheet or a closure report. If a chargesheet is filed, the matter proceeds to trial in a Sessions Court, conducted in camera under BNSS s.366(2), with the examination of witnesses required to proceed day-to-day once begun under BNSS s.346, and judgment to be pronounced within thirty days of the trial's conclusion under BNSS s.392(1). On conviction, sentencing follows, alongside any victim-compensation order. On acquittal, the criminal case ends there; any further step by the person who was accused (a malicious-prosecution suit, or a false-evidence/false-charge complaint) is a separate, additional legal proceeding with its own distinct requirements, not an automatic consequence of acquittal.
These are the remedies Indian law provides for this kind of situation -- not a recommendation, and not every remedy will apply to your own facts.
First Information Report / Zero FIR
Any police station
BNSS s.173 permits a cognizable offence to be reported at any police station regardless of jurisdiction; the police officer is bound to register it.
Victim compensation
District/State Legal Services Authority and the trial court
Under BNSS s.396 and the NALSA Compensation Scheme, 2018, compensation (guided minimum Rs.4 lakh for rape, Rs.5 lakh for gang rape) is available regardless of the outcome of the criminal case.
Anticipatory bail
Sessions Court or High Court
Under BNSS s.482, a person apprehending arrest may seek anticipatory bail; discretionary, assessed on the specific facts of the case.
Quashing of FIR/proceedings under inherent powers
High Court
Under BNSS s.528, applying the categories from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, available in narrow circumstances such as where the allegations disclose no offence even if taken at their highest, or where malicious institution is shown; settlement alone is generally not a sufficient ground, subject to a narrow, fact-specific exception recognised in one recent Supreme Court decision.
Civil suit for malicious prosecution
Civil Court
Available only after the criminal case has concluded in the person's favour, and only on separately proving absence of probable cause, malice, favourable termination, and actual damage.
Complaint for false evidence in a judicial proceeding
Magistrate's Court, on a written complaint by the court where the false statement was made
Under BNS s.229, read with the procedure at BNSS s.379; generally initiated by the court itself, not by the accused filing a police complaint directly.
Complaint for a false charge made with intent to injure
Magistrate's Court
Under BNS s.248, applicable where a charge is shown to have been made maliciously and with intent to cause injury; a non-cognizable, bailable, non-compoundable offence.
Do I need other witnesses or physical evidence, or is my own statement enough to support a case?
The Supreme Court has held, in State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, (1990) 1 SCC 550, and State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384, that a complainant in a sexual-offence case is not an accomplice and that her testimony, if the court finds it trustworthy, can by itself be sufficient for a conviction. Corroboration is treated as a rule of prudence a court may look for in appropriate circumstances, not a rule of law that is always required.
I did not report the incident immediately. Does that mean my complaint will not be believed?
Not necessarily. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gian Chand, (2001) 6 SCC 71, the Supreme Court held that delay in lodging an FIR in a sexual-offence case is not fatal to the prosecution where it is satisfactorily explained, recognising that family honour, social stigma, and trauma commonly cause delay in reporting.
Can I file a complaint at a police station outside the area where the incident happened?
Yes. Under BNSS s.173, information about a cognizable offence may be given to any police station regardless of where the offence occurred. If that station lacks territorial jurisdiction, it registers a 'Zero FIR' and transfers it to the correct station, which then continues the investigation.
Will my identity be made public during the case?
BNS s.72 makes it a punishable offence (imprisonment up to two years and a fine) to print or publish the name or any identifying detail of a person against whom an offence under BNS ss.64-71 is alleged, except with the complainant's own written authorisation, or, in specified circumstances, that of their next of kin.
Will the trial be open to the public and the media?
No. BNSS s.366(2) requires the inquiry and trial of these offences to be conducted in camera, as far as practicable by a woman Judge or Magistrate. The presiding Judge may permit a specific individual to be present on application, but the default is a closed proceeding.
Can the defence bring up my past relationships or sexual history during the trial?
No. BSA s.48 provides that where consent is in issue in a prosecution under BNS ss.64-71 (among other listed sections), evidence of the complainant's character or previous sexual experience with any person is not relevant to the question of consent.
Can I be repeatedly summoned to the police station for questioning?
No. The second proviso to BNSS s.179(1) provides that a woman cannot be required to attend any place other than her own residence for questioning; the investigating officer is instead expected to record her statement there.
Am I entitled to any financial compensation, separate from the outcome of the criminal case?
Yes. BNSS s.396 requires every State to operate a victim compensation scheme, administered through the Legal Services Authority and the trial court. NALSA's own 2018 scheme guides a minimum of Rs.4 lakh for rape and Rs.5 lakh for gang rape (higher for a minor victim), available whether or not the case results in conviction.
Is there a time limit within which I must file my complaint?
Generally, no. BNSS s.514 bars taking cognizance of an offence after a period of limitation only where it is punishable with a fine only or with imprisonment up to three years. Rape under BNS s.64 carries a minimum of ten years' imprisonment, so this bar does not apply.
Can the case be closed simply because I later reach a compromise with the accused?
Generally, no. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Madanlal, (2015) 7 SCC 681, and Shimbhu v. State of Haryana, (2014) 13 SCC 318, the Supreme Court held that rape is an offence against society and that a compromise between the parties cannot, by itself, be used to quash the case or reduce the sentence. The Supreme Court has, however, in a later, specific and unusual case (Prabhakar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 819), quashed a rape case based on a settlement -- describing this as an exceptional exercise of its power on that case's own particular facts, not a general rule that settlement is a valid ground.
If I believe an allegation against me is false, can I apply for bail before I am arrested?
A person who apprehends arrest may apply for anticipatory bail under BNSS s.482. Since rape under BNS s.64 is a non-bailable offence, this is entirely discretionary. Courts have stated they weigh, among other factors, the nature and gravity of the specific accusation, the applicant's own antecedents, the risk of the applicant fleeing or tampering with the investigation, and whether the accusation appears to have been made with intent to injure or humiliate the applicant -- assessed on the facts of each case, with no guaranteed outcome.
Can I get the FIR against me quashed if I believe it is false?
A High Court may quash an FIR under BNSS s.528 using the categories from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 -- for example, where the allegations, even taken at their highest, disclose no offence, or where the proceeding is shown to be maliciously instituted. This power is exercised sparingly. As the answer above notes, settlement between the parties has generally not been treated as a sufficient ground on its own to quash a case of this kind, though the Supreme Court has recognised a narrow, fact-specific exception in one recent decision.
If I am acquitted, does that mean the complaint against me was found to be false?
Not necessarily. An acquittal generally means the prosecution did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt -- a different, and legally lower, threshold than a court affirmatively finding that a complaint was false, fabricated, or made with malice. A malicious-prosecution suit or a false-evidence complaint requires that further, separate finding to be established; it does not follow automatically from an acquittal.
If a court does find, after the case concludes, that the complaint was false, what can I do?
Two separate legal routes exist. A civil suit for malicious prosecution requires proving that the case was brought without probable cause, was actuated by malice, ended in the accused's favour, and caused actual damage. Separately, a criminal complaint may be pursued for offences such as giving false evidence in a judicial proceeding (BNS s.229) or making a false charge with intent to injure (BNS s.248). Prosecution for false evidence given before a court is generally initiated by the court itself filing a written complaint, under the procedure at BNSS s.379, rather than by the accused filing an ordinary police report.
Governing law: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, ss.63-72 (successor to IPC ss.375-376E); Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, s.48
Source: Every section number and case citation above was independently verified this session against multiple sources (government/IndiaCode text, IndianKanoon, LiveLaw, SCC Online, Verdictum), not recalled from memory. Marked needs_review rather than verified for two disclosed reasons: (1) the exact procedural route for a false-evidence complaint under BNS s.229/BNSS s.379 in every circumstance was not traced with full certainty; and (2) the Prabhakar v. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 819) exception to the general no-quashing-on-settlement rule is a live, fact-specific, still-developing area of Supreme Court jurisprudence that a future review should re-check against any later ruling.
Aadhrix does not decide which route applies to you. This describes the official process as published — consider an advocate for advice specific to your situation.