[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Omprakash Rathore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 December, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31184
1 MCRC-42026-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 2 nd OF DECEMBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 42026 of 2025
OMPRAKASH RATHORE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sameer Kumar Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Mohit Shivhare - Public Prosecutor for the State.
Shri Ashirbad Dwivedi - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
petitioner seeking quashment of FIR bearing crime No. 199/2025 registered
at Police Station Ishagarh, District Ashoknagar for offence punishable under
Section 67 of BNS, 2023 and all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom.
As per prosecution story, respondent No.2, Smt. Manju Rathore had
lodged a complainat alleging that she was married to the petitioner Dr.
Omprakash Rathore on 17.02.2014 according to Hindu rites. The marital
relationship between the parties did not remain cordial, and consequently, the
petitioner initiated proceedings for dissolution of marriage before the
competent Court. It is further alleged that due to the demise of the father of
respondent No.2, she could not attend the said proceedings, whereupon the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31184
2 MCRC-42026-2025
Court, on 12.12.2024, passed an ex-parte decree of divorce. According to the
complaint, after the decree, the petitioner shifted to Village Maholi to reside
with his mother, while respondent No.2 continued to reside alone in the
house at Ishagarh, which is stated to be the matrimonial residence. Despite
the decree of divorce, the petitioner allegedly visited the said house on
several occasions and is stated to have compelled respondent No.2 to
maintain physical relations against her will. It is also alleged that whenever
she objected, the petitioner threatened that he would take steps to get the
Court's decree cancelled. The respondent No.2 has specifically alleged that
on 21.05.2025, the petitioner came to the said premises and allegedly forced
physical relations upon her. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the
present FIR has been registered against the accused persons.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before this Court that
the impugned FIR registered against the petitioner is manifestly illegal,
arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law as on its face, the FIR
represents a misuse of the criminal process, instituted with the sole intention
of harassing the petitioner and exerting undue pressure upon him.
Respondent No.2 was fully aware of the divorce proceedings pending
between the parties, a fact admitted by her in the FIR itself. Once she was
aware of the pendency of the divorce proceedings and thereafter of the
decree dated 12.12.2024 dissolving the marriage, the allegation that the
petitioner forcibly established physical relations with her after the decree
becomes highly improbable, unnatural, and inherently unreliable.
It is further submitted that after the dissolution of the marriage, it is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31184
3 MCRC-42026-2025
inconceivable that respondent No.2 would permit the petitioner to visit her
residence or maintain any form of physical proximity. The allegations
therefore appear to be an afterthought intended to create pressure upon the
petitioner with an oblique motive, either to extract monetary benefits or to
reopen matrimonial disputes through coercive criminal litigation. The FIR
does not contain any specific, distinct or detailed allegations that may prima
facie constitute an offence under Section 67 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Except for vague and bald assertions, no particular date, incident, or
circumstance has been furnished, and criminal proceedings cannot be
permitted to continue on such omnibus and unsubstantiated allegations.
It is further submitted that Respondent No.2 is an educated woman
fully aware of the existence of the decree of divorce. Even assuming, though
not admitting, that any physical relations took place thereafter with her
consent or voluntary participation, such conduct would not satisfy the
statutory ingredients of Section 67 BNS. The provision applies only where
the marital relationship continues to subsist and the parties are living
separately under circumstances of separation. Once the marital tie had been
severed by a decree of divorce, the foundational requirement of the statute is
absent, rendering the FIR legally untenable.
It is further submitted that during the pendency of the present petition,
certain material developments have further fortified the petitioner's case.
After the impugned FIR was lodged, respondent No.2 filed an application
under Order IX Rule 13 CPC seeking to set aside the ex parte decree dated
12.12.2024. The said application has now been allowed by the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31184
4 MCRC-42026-2025
Family Court vide order dated 17.09.2025. This contradictory conduct--
simultaneously alleging acts purportedly occurring after the divorce decree
while seeking revival of the very marriage through civil proceedings--
demonstrates that the FIR is not only improbable but also legally
inconsistent. Depending upon the continuation or annulment of the decree,
the very basis of the FIR becomes unstable and self-contradictory.
It is also of significance that respondent No.2 has, on multiple previous
occasions, initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioner, and in every
such case the petitioner has been acquitted. She earlier lodged FIR at Crime
No. 328/2018 under Sections 294, 323, and 506 IPC, resulting in RCT No.
487/2019, in which the petitioner was acquitted by judgment dated
09.10.2025. She further lodged FIR at Crime No. 226/2017 under Sections
498-A and 323/34 IPC, leading to RCT No. 616/2019, wherein also the
petitioner was acquitted by judgment dated 09.10.2025. Additionally, FIR at
Crime No. 415/2013 alleging offences under Sections 498-A, 294, 323, 506,
and 34 IPC culminated in RCT No. 227/2024, and the petitioner was
acquitted therein as well by judgment dated 09.10.2025. These multiple
acquittals arising from cases originated by the respondent clearly indicate her
sustained pattern of filing false, frivolous, and motivated cases against the
petitioner, thereby misusing the legal process as a tool of harassment.
It is further submitted that the charge sheet in the present case has been
filed, but the filing of the charge sheet does not cure the inherent illegality in
the institution of the FIR nor supply any of the missing statutory ingredients
of the alleged offence. The allegations continue to remain vague, self-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31184
5 MCRC-42026-2025
contradictory, and devoid of the essential elements required to constitute an
offence under Section 67 BNS.
Taken together, these circumstances unmistakably reveal that the
impugned FIR is malicious, frivolous, and an abuse of the process of law.
Continuation of the criminal proceedings would cause serious prejudice to
the petitioner and defeat the very object of the inherent jurisdiction of this
Court. It is therefore prayed that the FIR registered as Crime No. 199/2025 at
Police Station Ishagarh, District Ashoknagar (M.P.) along with the charge
sheet and all consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom, be
quashed.
Per contra, leaned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as the
counsel for the complainant sumbitted that the allegations contained in the
impugned FIR disclose a cognizable offence warranting investigation under
Section 67 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The FIR, when read as a whole,
asserts that the petitioner allegedly established physical relations with the
respondent without her consent, and such allegations cannot be brushed aside
at the threshold. At the stage of exercising jurisdiction under Section 482
CrPC, the Court is not expected to conduct a meticulous examination of the
evidence or embark upon a detailed appreciation of disputed facts. The
truthfulness, falsity, or improbability of the allegations is a matter to be
tested during trial on the basis of evidence collected by the investigating
agency. Since the police have already conducted investigation and filed the
charge sheet, the material placed on record prima facie supports the
commission of the alleged offence, and therefore the criminal proceedings
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31184
6 MCRC-42026-2025
should be permitted to continue.
It is further submitted that the subsequent developments relating to
matrimonial proceedings, including the setting aside of the ex parte divorce
decree, have no bearing on the maintainability of the criminal prosecution.
The criminal law operates independently of civil or matrimonial disputes,
and the acts alleged in the FIR, if proved, constitute a distinct offence under
the penal statute. The mere fact that the respondent had earlier lodged cases
in which the petitioner was acquitted does not by itself render the present
proceedings malicious or an abuse of process. Each case must be evaluated
on its own facts. Since the allegations in the FIR prima facie satisfy the
statutory ingredients and require adjudication on evidence, the State submits
that this is not a fit case for quashing under Section 482 CrPC.
After considering the submissions advanced by both sides and
carefully examining the material placed on record, this Court is of the
considered opinion that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue
against the petitioner would amount to a misuse of the process of law, as
when taken at their face value, the allegations in the impugned FIR do not
satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 67 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023. This provision penalizes non-consensual sexual intercourse by
a husband with his wife during circumstances of separation, and the
existence of a subsisting marital relationship is a mandatory precondition for
its application. In the present case, the complainant herself admits in the FIR
that a decree of divorce was passed on 12.12.2024 dissolving the marriage
between the parties. Once the marital tie stood severed, the complainant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31184
7 MCRC-42026-2025
ceased to be the "wife" in the eyes of law, and the petitioner ceased to be the
"husband." Thus, the very foundational requirement for invoking Section 67
BNS is wholly absent.
The allegations of non-consensual physical relations said to have
occurred after the decree of divorce are not only legally unsustainable but
also appear inherently improbable. The subsequent development in the civil
proceedings, wherein the ex parte divorce decree was set aside on
17.09.2025 at the instance of the complainant, further exposes inconsistency
in her conduct. While she seeks reinstatement of marital status before the
Family Court, she simultaneously alleges criminal acts said to have occurred
during a period when she maintains that the marital bond no longer subsisted.
Such contradictory stands render the foundation of the FIR unstable and self-
defeating.
The record further reveals that respondent No.2 has previously
instituted multiple criminal cases against the petitioner, all of which resulted
in his acquittal. This consistent pattern lends credence to the petitioner's plea
that the present proceedings are actuated by mala fides and intended to
harass him. The allegations in the FIR remain vague, general, and
unsupported by specific material capable of constituting the offence alleged.
The filing of the charge sheet does not remedy these fundamental defects, as
the indispensable statutory element of a continuing marital relationship is
lacking.
In view of the foregoing circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the
present case squarely falls within the category warranting exercise of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31184
8 MCRC-42026-2025
inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of the process of
law and to secure the ends of justice.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The FIR registered as Crime No.
199/2025 at Police Station Ishagarh, District Ashoknagar, for the alleged
offence punishable under Section 67 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,
together with the charge sheet and all consequential criminal proceedings
arising therefrom, is hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
