Madhya Pradesh High Court
Maghvendra Rawat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 October, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27736
1 MCRC-950-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 30th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 950 of 2020
MAGHVENDRA RAWAT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ravi Shankar Bansal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri APS Tomar - Public Prosecutor for the State.
ORDER
The present petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed by the
petitioner seeking quashment of F.I.R. bearing Crime No.847 of 2019
registered at Police Station Bahodapur, District Gwalior for the offence
under Section 195-A of the IPC and subsequent proceedings arising out
therefore, if any.
As per prosecution story, the complainant Kiran alias Mahi Batham,
daughter of Ramesh Chand Batham, aged about 26 years and resident of
Mohite Garden, Chand Nagar, Bahodapur, Gwalior, appeared before the
Bahodapur Police Station and submitted a written application alleging that
she had earlier, on 22 October 2019, lodged a complaint at the same police
station against Maghvendra Rawat (present petitioner) for the offence of
rape. After registration of the said offence, the accused allegedly remained
absconding.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27736
2 MCRC-950-2020
According to the complainant, on 20 November 2019, at about 6:15
p.m., the accused Maghvendra Rawat (present petitioner) met her near
Mohite Garden and threatened her with death. He allegedly told the
complainant that he had obtained anticipatory bail and warned her that if she
did not withdraw her earlier complaint and did not change her statement
before the court, he would kill her. The accused further boasted that even
after committing such an act he would obtain regular bail and the police
would be unable to take action against him, and he had the capacity to "buy"
the entire police station. The complainant further alleged that the accused
claimed that the police officials who failed to arrest him "salute" him and no
one could harm him.
The complainant also alleged that two brothers-in-law of the accused
went to the house of her elder sister's in-laws and threatened her brother-in-
law, pressuring him to pursue a compromise. They allegedly offered an
amount of ₹1,00,000 to withdraw the case. On the basis of such allegation,
FIR bearing Crime No.847/2019 for the offence under Section 195-A of the
IPC was registered against the petitioner.
Following registration of the FIRs, the police initiated investigation in
both matters. The statements of the complainant and witnesses were recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and the statements of key witnesses were also
recorded before the concerned Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The
investigating authorities also collected CCTV footage relating to the alleged
incident.
The petitioner/accused submitted that this Court, vide order dated 11
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27736
3 MCRC-950-2020
November 2019, had already granted anticipatory bail to him in Crime
No.768/2019 (registered under Sections 376 and 506 IPC). Thereafter, with a
malicious intent and to wreak vengeance, the complainant falsely lodged the
present (second) FIR, being Crime No. 847/2019, under Section 195-A IPC.
After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has filed on 30 December
2019.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before this Court that
the impugned FIR and the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Crime
No.847/2019 registered under Section 195-A of the IPC are not maintainable
in law and deserve to be quashed, as upon a bare perusal of the statements of
witnesses recorded during the investigation, no prima facie offence is made
out against the petitioner and despite this, the police authorities have filed the
charge-sheet without appreciating that continuation of such proceedings
amounts to abuse of the process of law. The materials available on record do
not disclose any likelihood of conviction of the petitioner. The law in this
regard has been well settled by the Apex Court in State of Haryana & Others
vs. Bhajan Lal & Others, AIR 1992 SC 604, wherein it has been held that
where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused, and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge,
this Court may interfere in such proceedings relating to cognizable offences
to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends
of justice.
It is further submitted that cognizance of an offence under Section
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27736
4 MCRC-950-2020
195-A of the IPC cannot be taken by the police or by any court without a
private complaint being filed as provided under Section 195-A of the CrPC
and in the present case, no such complaint has been filed under Section 195-
A of the CrPC, therefore, the registration of the FIR itself is without
jurisdiction and not maintainable. Section 195-A of the CrPC clearly
provides that a witness or any other person may file a complaint in relation to
an offence under Section 195-A of the IPC. The said provision, inserted by
Section 17 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 (No.
5 of 2009) with effect from 31.12.2009, lays down that the procedure for
dealing with threats to witnesses is through a complaint filed before the
competent court in which the trial is pending. Therefore, in absence of such a
complaint, no FIR could have been registered by the police under Section
195-A IPC.
It is further submitted that this Court in similar circumstances was
quashed FIRs and criminal proceedings under Section 195-A IPC in the
cases of Ratanlal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Order dated 03.08.2018 in
CRR No. 3385/2017, Jabalpur Bench); Mahanand Patle vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh (Order dated 27.09.2019 in CRR No. 6107/2018, Jabalpur Bench),
and Smt. Lalita Yadav vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Order dated 11.09.2014
in MCRC No. 76/2014, Jabalpur Bench).
Learned counsel has further placed reliance upon the recent judgment
of the Apex Court in Salib @ Shalu @ Salim vs. State of U.P. and Others,
2023 SCC OnLine SC 947, to submit that although Section 195-A IPC is a
cognizable offence, the power of investigation must be exercised judiciously,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27736
5 MCRC-950-2020
and where the allegations are inherently improbable or actuated by mala
fides, the FIR and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed. He has
also submitted that he intends to rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court
in C. Muniyappan and Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2010) 9
SCC 567, which reiterates that continuation of criminal proceedings which
amounts to abuse of the process of law should be quashed to secure the ends
of justice.
On the basis of the above arguments, it is prayed that the present
petition be allowed and the impugned FIR bearing Crime No.847/2019 along
with all consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom, be quashed.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the submissions
advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the allegations
contained in the impugned FIR clearly disclose a cognizable offence under
Section 195-A of the IPC. It is further submitted that the complainant, in her
written application and in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and
164 of the CrPC, had specifically alleged that the petitioner threatened her
with death and coerced her to withdraw the earlier complaint of rape. Since
the offence under Section 195-A IPC is cognizable and non-bailable, the
police were well within their jurisdiction to register the FIR and investigate
the matter. The argument that a private complaint under Section 195-A CrPC
is a prerequisite is misconceived, as the said provision only provides an
enabling remedy and does not bar police investigation in a cognizable case.
The investigation was carried out fairly and impartially, and sufficient
evidence was found to justify filing of the charge-sheet. It is further
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27736
6 MCRC-950-2020
submitted that the contentions raised by the petitioner involve disputed
questions of fact that cannot be examined in proceedings under Section 482
CrPC. The truth or falsity of the allegations can only be determined during
trial on the basis of evidence adduced before the court. The inherent powers
under Section 482 are to be exercised sparingly and not to stifle legitimate
prosecution. The FIR discloses the ingredients of the alleged offence and
does not fall within any of the exceptional categories laid down by the Apex
Court in the matter of State of Haryana & Others vs. Bhajan Lal & Others,
reported in AIR 1992 SC 604. Hence, the petition is devoid of merit and
deserves to be dismissed.
After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record as well as
the case law cited, this Court finds that the material collected during
investigation, including the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164
CrPC and other documentary evidence, prima facie discloses commission of
the alleged offence. The allegations in the FIR are specific, direct, and of a
serious nature--accusing the petitioner of threatening the complainant to
withdraw a rape case. Such allegations, on their face, attract the ingredients
of Section 195-A IPC. The investigating agency, after due inquiry, has filed
the charge-sheet; therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that the prosecution
is manifestly frivolous or mala fide.
This Court is of the considered view that the contentions raised by the
petitioner regarding non-maintainability of the FIR on the ground that no
private complaint under Section 195-A CrPC was filed are misconceived.
The Apex Court, in the matter of State of Kerala vs. Suni @ Sunil, reported
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27736
7 MCRC-950-2020
in 2025 INSC 1260, has categorically held that the offence under Section
195-A IPC is cognizable and the police are fully empowered to register an
FIR and investigate such offence under Section 154 CrPC. The Apex Court
clarified that the provision contained in Section 195-A CrPC merely affords
an additional remedy to a witness or person threatened to file a private
complaint before the competent court; it does not impose a restriction or bar
on the police machinery from acting where the offence alleged is cognizable
in nature.
Accordingly, the reliance placed by the petitioner on earlier decisions
such as Ratanlal v. State of M.P., Mahanand Patle v. State of M.P., and Smt.
Lalita Yadav v. State of M.P., wherein the FIRs were quashed on the premise
that the procedure under Section 195-A CrPC was mandatory, is misplaced
and no longer good law in view of the authoritative pronouncement in State
of Kerala v. Suni @ Sunil ( supra). Likewise, the judgments relied upon by
the petitioner in Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of U.P. and C. Muniyappan
v. State of Tamil Nadu are clearly distinguishable on facts, as in those cases
the allegations were found to be inherently improbable or lacking
foundational material, whereas in the present case, there exists specific and
corroborative evidence collected during investigation.
It is a settled legal position that the inherent powers of this Court under
Section 482 CrPC are to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and
only where the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse
of the process of law or where the complaint does not disclose any offence.
The present case does not fall within any of the categories enumerated by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27736
8 MCRC-950-2020
Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal ( supra). The allegations in the
FIR, if accepted at their face value, do constitute an offence under Section
195-A IPC, and therefore, this Court finds no justification to invoke its
inherent powers to quash the proceedings at the threshold.
In view of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the ratio laid down
in State of Kerala v. Suni @ Sunil (supra), this Court holds that the
registration of FIR No.847/2019 and the subsequent investigation are legally
sustainable. The petition is accordingly dismissed. The trial Court shall
proceed with the matter in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any
observations made herein.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
