Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prakash Upadhyay vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 September, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
1
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44212
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 8th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 20604 of 2025
PRAKASH UPADHYAY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anil Khare and Shri Naman Nagrath - Senior Advocates
assisted by Shri Chandrahas Dubey, Vikas Upadhyay, Ravindranath
Chaturvedi, Ramnath Dwivedi, Hitendra Golhani and Shri Utsarg
Agrawal - Advocates for the petitioner.
Shri A. S. Baghel - Government Advocate for the respondents
No.1 to 3 / State.
None for the respondent No. 4, even after service of notice.
............................................................................................................
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
is filed assailing the FIR dated 11.6.2025 registered at Crime No. 255 of
2025 in Police Station Civil Lines, Rewa (M.P.) by the respondent No. 4
for the offence under Section 65 (2) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 5 and 6
of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short,
'POCSO Act') against the petitioner.
2. Counsel appearing for the State has submitted that respondent no. 4
has been served and intimation regarding service to respondent no. 4 is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44212
uploaded in the reference column vide document dated 12.8.2025 sent by
the In-charge, Police Station Civil Line, District Rewa.
3. State counsel has produced the case diary.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a designated Senior
Advocate practicing in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh since last
more than 20 years. He belongs to a family of lawyers who all have given
dedicated service to this Institution for almost more than five decades.
Respondent no. 4 is the complainant and she has two minor daughters
and she is in the habit of making a false and frivolous complaints
regarding sexual assault against various people in her name as well as in
the name of her minor daughters with ulterior motives. In order to file a
criminal revision against the order dated 15.4.2024, the complainant
came to the office of the petitioner. The case of the complainant was
drafted and filed by the petitioner's office on 15.5.2024. However, while
preparing the matter for admission, on going through the records of the
case, he came to know about the similar allegations being made by the
respondent no. 4 against other persons in the past and found that the
complainant is in the habit of making false and frivolous complaints in
order to blackmail the people. So he asked her to engage another
advocate and gave N.O.C. to the complainant on 27.9.2024. The denial
of the petitioner to handle her case led to filing of frivolous complaints
against the petitioner in order to blackmail him and to pressurize him.
First complaint was made on 30.11.2024 against the petitioner wherein
she has mentioned that she visited the petitioner's office prior to Navratri
from 3.10.2024 to 12.10.2024, the petitioner outraged her modesty. A
legal notice sent by her was issued on 21.10.2024. However, in the legal
notice, there was no such allegation levelled against the petitioner. The
said legal notice was received on 24.10.2024. In the notice, she
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44212
demanded that the petitioner to represent her in the case or return the fee
which was paid to him else she would initiate legal proceedings against
him. Thereafter, she made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police on
30.11.2024.
5. It is further pointed out that on 20.12.2024 the complainant went to
meet the petitioner at High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur with
regard to her matter and on that date, the petitioner committed rape on
her two years old daughter in front of Court Room No. 15 in the high
court premises. This was a second attempt made by her to implicate the
petitioner in a criminal case. Another complaint was made on
27.12.2024. The matter was investigated by the police authorities. Even
CCTV footage was collected and the complaint made by the respondent
no. 4 was found to be incorrect. Thereafter, the complainant again made
similar complaints to the Collector, Rewa, Chief Medical Officer, Rewa,
Inspector General of Police, Rewa, State Bar Council of Madhya
Pradesh, Jabalpur with respect to the alleged incident that took place on
20.12.2024 in the High Court premises. However, as nothing was found
against the petitioner in the enquiry, the complaint was closed by making
entry in the Rojnamcha Sanha dated 29.12.2024. It was informed by the
petitioner to the police authorities that the allegation levelled with respect
to the alleged incident dated 20.12.2024, he was not in Jabalpur. He was
at New Delhi from 17th night to 21st morning. He also provided his flight
tickets, train tickets and details of the proximity card of high security area
of the Supreme Court. The police authorities submitted the report on
24.2.2025 and found the complaint to be frivolous. The said report is not
put to challenge till date.
6. Thereafter, again an FIR was registered against the petitioner at
Crime No.255/25 on 11.6.2025 at Police Station Civil Line, Rewa for the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44212
offence under Section 65 (2) of the BNS, 2023 and under Sections 5 and
6 of the POCSO Act. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is that
in the intervening night of 7.6.2025 her husband went to the toilet. The
petitioner entered into her house and committed rape on her daughter.
When she woke up, she saw a bald person running from her house. She
followed him and saw that it was the petitioner. She raised hue and cry
and when her husband came back from toilet, she narrated the entire
incident to him. She took her daughter to the hospital where she was
admitted and MLC was got done. The petitioner submitted detail
particulars to the police authorities regarding the fact that he was at Rewa
on that date as his parental house is at Rewa. The house of the
complainant is near about 4 to 5 Kms away from his house. CCTV
footage was given to the police authorities shows that from 10:50 pm till
7 am in the morning there was no movement. He has also requested the
authorities to collect the CCTV footage of adjoining houses to carry out
the fair investigation in the matter.
7. It is argued that with the malice intent and just to blackmail the
petitioner, such frivolous complaint has been made against the petitioner.
There was no material on record to show that the petitioner in any way is
involved in commission of the alleged offence. The police authorities
have completed the investigation and submitted closure report before the
competent trial Court. They found the complaint to be false and
frivolous. Therefore, interference is called for. Counsel appearing for the
petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court as well as this Court in the case of ABC Vs. State and another,
reported in 2024 SCC Online Del 8113, Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT
of Delhi) reported in (2013) 9 SCC 293,Vishnu Kumar Tiwari vs. State
of U.P., reported in 2019 Supreme (SC) 923, Bhagwant Singh Vs.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44212
Commissioner of Police and another, reported in (1985) 2 SCC 537,
Karthick Theodore vs. The Registrar General and others passed in WA
(M.D.) No.1901 of 2021 and Vasunathan Vs. The Registrar General,
reported in 2017 SCC Online Kar, 424.
8. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed on records the
Rojnamcha Sanha entry that she first went to the police authorities. If
Rojnamcha Sanha is seen then there is no mentioning of any of the
allegation levelled against the petitioner with regard to the date of
incident. She has not even disclosed any information about the criminal
incidence, therefore, the FIR was not registered at initial stage. But
subsequently, when she came to the police station and orally made a
complaint, the authorities were under compulsion to register an FIR in
terms of the directions given by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. & Ors
passed in W.P. (criminal) No. 68 of 2008 on 12.11.2013, which provides
that the police authorities are duty bound to register an FIR with regard
to the cognizable offence, therefore, the FIR was registered against the
petitioner.
9. It is argued that such frivolous complaint which does not make out
a case against the petitioner should not be entertained as it amounts to
abuse of process of law, therefore, it should be quashed at the threshold.
Permitting to continue such proceeding against the petitioner would
amount to harassment and will be a dent to the reputation of the
petitioner who is senior counsel of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
and to his family who is having a long standing in this noble profession
for last 50 years. It is further prayed that the authorities be directed to
take action against complainant invoking Section 22 of the POCSO Act,
2012. Therefore, he has prayed for quashment of such proceedings.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44212
10. On notice being issued, a detailed reply has been filed by the state
authorities. It is pointed out that in view of the directions given by this
Court not to take any coercive action against the petitioner and not to
make circulation in any newspaper or social media with respect to the
incident, they have complied the directions given by this court on
17.6.2025. It further pointed out that the authorities during the
investigation have collected the several documents including the MLC
report, the documents relating to the treatment of the girl, statement of
the complainant and the persons residing in the vicinity. They have also
collected the tower location of the suspected persons, CCTV footage of
all the possible places and the samples were collected for sending it to the
forensic examination. After conducting the complete investigation, the
police authorities arrived at a conclusion that no case is made out against
the petitioner and they have submitted the closure report before the
Superintendent of Police, District Rewa for approval. The Superintendent
of Police, Rewa approved the same and the same was directed to be
presented before the concerning Magistrate. It is fairly conceded by the
State Counsel that in the investigation, the police authorities have not
found any allegation made against the petitioner to be correct; therefore,
the closure report is submitted. It is contended by the State counsel that
as the closure report is submitted before the trial Court and now it is for
the trial court to look into the same and take a final decision on the
closure report.
11. State counsel has pointed out that after completion of the
investigation, closure report has been filed before the trial court and the
prosecutrix has marked her presence before the trial court.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44212
13. From perusal of the record, it is seen that it is an admitted position
that on earlier occasion, several complaints were made by the
complainant against other persons and also against the petitioner.
Chronology of the complaints made by the complainant on earlier
occasions is pointed out herein below in a tabular form :-
Case Allegations & Alleged accused Outcome
No. alleged victim
UNC Elder daughter is Laxmi Sondhiya, Pratibha CWC, Rewa has
R/172 shown as victim. Sondhiya (sister-in-law),
on 26/09/2023
/2023 Alleged offences Raghvendra Sondhiya, Rakesh reported that
under Section Sondhiya, Sudhanshudaughter has not
323, 294, 452, Sondhiya (all are brothers-in- supported her
506, 376, 34 of law of complainant) Pradeep allegations and
IPC Tiwari (Teacher of her child) the complainant is
Dilip Patel (Landlord) using the case to
settle family
dispute and
because of old
enmity. The case
was accordingly
dismissed by the
court.
UNC Elder daughter is Pradeep Tiwari (Teacher of her That vide order
R- portrayed as a child), Dilip Patel (Landlord) dated 15/04/2024
22/24 victim. Offence the Special Court
alleged under dismissed the
sections 354, 376, case on
294, 506 of IPC examining the
& Section 3 & 4 police report and
of POCSO other evidence,
holding that the
case is fabricated
and is not even
supported by her
statement of her
elder daughter as
well.
Sr. Nature of Allegations & victim, if any Outcome
No. complaint
1. Legal Notice It is alleged that the petitioner Not perused by the
received on has taken complete fee of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44212
24/10/2024 matter but is now refusing to complainant
context her case and has given
NOC in the matter
2. Made a complaint That in said complaint dated Detailed inquiry
at Jabalpur 30/11/2024 she has alleged conducted by
showing herself that somewhere prior to Jabalpur police and
as victim wherein navratri (which started on complaint was
alleged incident is 3/10.2024) petitioner has found to be false
of a date prior to outraged her modesty and has and frivolous
3/10/2024 asked for sexual favour from
her as a condition to continue
representing her in her
Criminal Revision. However,
thee is no whisper about the
said incident in her legal
notice sent on 24/10.2024
3. Made a complaint That in a complaint made to Amahiya Police
of sexual assault SP, Rewa she alleges that she did not find any
on her 2 year old had gone to meet the petitioner evidence in the
daughter at High Court and when she case and closed it
was inside court no. 15 of MP by making
High Court at Jabalpur, rojnamcha entry on
petitioner has kidnapped her 2 29/12/2024
year old child and has raped
her in front of court no. 15 of
High Court.
4. Makes another That for the same incident she That Jabalpur
complaint at made numerous complaints police investigated
Jabalpur showing from SP Jabalpur to State Bar the matter in detail
her 2 year old council, alleging that petitioner and dismissed the
child as victim for has raped her 2 year old same recording
the same incident daughter in front of court that the same is
which was no.15 of MP High Court at false and
rejected by Rewa 4:30 PM on 20/12/2024 fabricated and also
Police recording that
complainant is in
habit of making
such false and
frivolous
complaints.
5. For incident That for the same date and The complaint is
which allegedly time, on which later FIR has closed by making
occurred on the been registered, the rojnamcha entry. It
night of 7th -8th complainant got her daughter is mentioned
June hospitalized after 3 days of therein that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44212
incident and called police but complainant is in
police did not find any habit of making
ingredient of any cognizable false acquisition
offence in her complaint. against people.
6. Present FIR on That within hours of her That despite the
11/06/2025 complaint having been closed fact that
by rojnamcha entry, the police complainant has
(for reasons best known to been held to be in
them) permitted her to make a habit of making
complete U-turn, change her such frivolous
statement and alleged allegations against
commission of rape of her 3 people in past and
year old daughter. However, also that she was
the allegations in FIR still found to have
remain very sketchy, alleging made a similar
that petitioner was staying in fake and frivolous
her neighbourhood and has allegation against
entered inside her house petitioner just
around 12-1 AM in couple of months
intervening night of 7th & 8th back, and even
June, 2025 and has raped her 2 hours before the
year old daughter. However, lodging of FIR, the
there is not even a whisper of police registered
all earlier attempts made by FIR against the
her and rejection of her petitioner, which is
complaints for the same pending as of now.
incident only hours before
registration of present FIR.
14. From perusal of the aforesaid it is apparently clear that the
complainant is in the habit of making false and frivolous complaints. On
perusal of the aforesaid chart it is seen that the complaint UNCR
No.172/23 wherein her elder daughter was shown as a victim. The
daughter herself has not supported the allegation made by the
complainant. It is further observed that the complainant by using her
daughter had tried to settle the family dispute. However, that complaint
was dismissed by the Court. Another complaint UNCR No.22/24 wherein
the elder daughter is portrayed as a victim, the Special court also
dismissed the complaint on 15.4.2024 after examining the police report
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44212
and other evidence and there was a specific observation made by the
Court that the complaint is fabricated and not being supported even by
the statement of her elder daughter. She has made a complaint against the
petitioner regarding outraging her modesty and on the said complaint, a
detailed enquiry was conducted by the police authorities and the
complaint was found to be false and frivolous. She had made a complaint
against the petitioner regarding outraging her modesty and on the said
complaint, a detailed enquiry was conducted by the police authorities and
the complaint was found to be false and frivolous. She again made a
complaint regarding sexual assault on her two years old daughter in front
of the Court room no. 15 in the premises of the High Court, Jabalpur.
The matter was thoroughly investigated by the police authorities. They
have even collected the CCTV footage and recorded the statements and
found that the complaint is false and frivolous. In pursuance to the said
complaint, she has also made numerous complaints to the Superintendent
of Police, Jabalpur and Chairman, State Bar Council regarding offence of
rape being committed by the petitioner on her two years old daughter in
front of Court room no. 15 in the High Court premises. Another
complaint with respect to the alleged incident in the intervening night of
7th & 8th of June, 2025, the complainant got her daughter admitted in the
hospital after three days of the incident. The police authorities
investigating the matter have not found any ingredients of the cognizable
offence. The complaint was closed by making entry in the Rojnamcha
Sanha further observing that the complainant is in the habit of making
false accusation against several persons. Thereafter, the complainant
appeared before the police authorities and on her oral complaint, an FIR
has been registered.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44212
15. It is surprising that once the police authorities have already
closed the complaint by making entry in Rojnamcha Sanha No. 39 dated
11.6.2025, then how the police authorities have taken a somersault within
a short period and register the FIR against the petitioner. The relevant
extracts of Rojnamcha Sanha entry is important and the same is as
under:-
jkstukepk fooj.k
LFkku % jhok
fnu % cq/kokj Fkkuk % flfoy ykbal
fnukad % 11@06@2025 le; % 01%57
izfof"V izfof"V le; C;kSjs lUnHkZ
Øekad dk
izdkj
039 vU; 01%57 jkstukepk izfof"V fujh{kd fjiksVZ ckor u ys[k
KAMLESHKUMARSAHU iqfyl djkus vkosfndk
flikgh@sarad singh chandel }kjk dh x;h }kjk ?kVuk ds laca/k
cts dh lwpuk eq> mi&fujh{kd vkWpy flag ls gS esa rF;kRed dFku]
fd efgyk laca/kh f'kdk;r ij dk;Zokgh gsrq djus vujxy
eqrkfcd vkns'k Jheku iqfyl v/kh{kd egksn; ds ckrphr iwNrkN ds
sgmh jhok igqaph tks vLirky ls ,e,ylh HkrhZ
lwpuk dh rgjhj izkIr gksus ij sgmh jhok ds
cPpk okMZ igqaph vkSj vkosfndk xxx xxx xxx
gky fuokl fdjk;s dk edku nhun;ky /kke
dkyksuh iMjk Fkkuk flfoy ykbu jhok ds cPph
xxx mez 3 o"kZ ls feyh rks mls mldk uke iwNk
tks viuk uke xxx rFkk vius firk dk uke xxx
o ekW dk uke xxx crkbZ rc xxx ls mlds lkFk
gq, fdlh Hkh izdkj dh dksbZ ?kVuk ds laca/k esa
iwNrkN dh tks dksbZ tkudkjh u nsrs viuh ekW
xxx dh rjQ ns[kus yxh fd lHkh xxx cksyh fd
?kVuk fnukad le; pdz esjh cPph lks jgh Fkh
mls dqN ugha irk tks Hkh iwNrkN djuh gks eq>ls
djksA pwafd blds iwoZ Hkh dbZ ckj mDr vkosfndk
}kjk bl izdkj dh >wBh lwpuk Fkkuk esa nh xbZ Fkh]
blfy, ihfM+rk ls iwNrkN djuk izFke n`"Brk
mfpr le>rs gq,] eSus vkosfndk ls dgk fd eS
igys ihfM+rk ls iwNrkN dj ywW fQj vkils iwNrkN
d:axh] cl blh ckr ij vkosfndk xxx esjs lkFk
vujxy ckr phr djrs gq, onhZ QkM+ dj Qsadus
gsrq dgus yxh] rc esjs }kjk vkosfndk dks 'kkar
jgus gsrq dgk tkdj dFku ys[k djkus gsrq dgk
x;k tks vkosfndk us vius dFku esa crk;k fd
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44212
fnukad 7@6@25 o 8@6@25 ¼'kfuokj o jfookj½
dh njfe;kuh jkr esa vius ifr o nksuksa csfV;ksa ds
lkFk dejs esa lks jgh Fkh] ifr ckFk:e x, rks esjh
uhan [kqy xbZ rks eSaus fdlh O;fDr dks dejs ls
ckgj tkrs ns[kk] ftlds flj esa cky ugha Fks] dejs
esa va/ksjk Fkk] blfy, psgjk o igus gq, diM+s ugha
ns[k ikbZ Fkh] ysfdu eq>s 'kadk gS fd og O;fDr
ukjsUnz uxj fuoklh izdk'k mik/;k; odhy jgk
gksxk D;ksafd og vDlj esjs iM+kslh xksyw lkdsr ds
dejs esa vkrk tkrk jgrk gSA vkosfndk }kjk vU;
dksbZ tkudkjh ugha nhA pwafd vkosfndk }kjk ?kVuk
ds laca/k esa rF;kRed dFku ys[k ugha djk;k x;k]
ftlls vijk/k iathc) ugha fd;k tk ldk] mDr
lwpuk ls ofj"B vf/kdkjhx.k dks voxr djkdj
fjiksVZ bryku ntZ dh tkrh gS] ckn eqrkfcd
vkns'k ofj"B vf/kdkjhx.k vfxze oS/kkfud dk;Zokgh
vkbank dh tkrh gSA
16. On perusal of the said document (Rojnamcha Sanha report)
coupled with the reply submitted by the State authorities that they have
not found the complaint to be correct and also the fact that the
complainant /respondent no. 4 being habitual of making false and
frivolous complaints against people, no offence is found to be made out
against the present petitioner.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of cases has considered
similar aspect and has held that the FIR can be quashed in a proceeding
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. as well as Article 226 of the Constitution
when the complaint made are found to be false and frivolous and
permitting to continue the such complaint, amounts to abuse of process
of law. The Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of State of Haryana and
others Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335 has
considered the similar proposition and laid down the guidelines. The said
aspect has again been considered in the recent judgment by the Hon'ble
Supreme court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. vs
State of Maharashtra reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401 has dealt with
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44212
the proposition of quashing of the FIR and especially in paragraph 80
has framed guidelines, which reads as under :-
"80. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,
our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the
High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of
stay of investigation and/or ''no coercive steps to be adopted
'', during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section
482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court
would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the
accused or ''no coercive steps to be adopted'' during the
investigation or till the final report/charge sheet is filed
under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not
entertaining/ not quashing the criminal proceedings/
complaint /FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
our final conclusions are as under:-
i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in
Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable
offence;
ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the
cognizable offences;
iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence
of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the
Court will not permit an investigation to go on;
iv) The power of quashing should be exercised
sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in
the rare of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation
in the context of death penalty).
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is
sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the
reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations
made in the FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the
initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception
rather than an ordinary rule;
viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the
jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State
operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not
to tread over the other sphere;
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44212
ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are
complementary, not overlapping;
x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would
result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial
process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of
offences;
xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not
confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according
to its whims or caprice;
xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia
which must disclose all facts and details relating to the
offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the
police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits
of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to
complete the investigation. It would be premature to
pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the
complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it
amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the
investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the
application made by the complainant, the investigating
officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the
learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned
Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;
xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but
conferment of wide power requires the court to be more
cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the
court;
xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit,
regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-
restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters
laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra)
and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the
FIR/complaint;
xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the
alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the
allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable
offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits
whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a
cognizable offence and the court has to permit the
investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in
the FIR;
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44212
xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the
aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High
Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition
in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim
order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the
quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such
an interim order should not require to be passed routinely,
casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the
investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the
entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the
High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim
order of not to arrest or no coercive steps to be adopted and
the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail
under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The
High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing
the order of not to arrest and/or no coercive steps either
during the investigation or till the investigation is completed
and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section
173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of the quashing
petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.
xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of
the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of
interim stay of further investigation, after considering the
broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give
brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or
is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the
application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can
consider what was weighed with the High Court while
passing such an interim order.
xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court
of no coercive steps to be adopted within the aforesaid
parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by
no coercive steps to be adopted as the term no coercive steps
to be adopted can be said to be too vague and/or broad which
can be misunderstood and/or misapplied."
18. If the aforesaid principles are applied in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, it is clearly seen that permitting to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44212
continue the proceedings against the petitioner who is senior advocate
and is having long standing of 20 years in the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh coupled with the fact that the police authorities during
investigation themselves have found that no offence is made out and
submitted the closure report before the concerning Magistrate. Permitting
to continue such proceedings against the petitioner is falling under the
guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and will amount to clear abuse
of process of law.
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haji Iqbal @ Bala
Through S.P.O.A vs. State of U.P. and ors, reported in 2023 Supreme
(SC) 693 in a case under Section 376 (d) of IPC has observed as under :-
13.....It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes the greatest
distress and humiliation to the victim but at the same time a false
allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and
damage to the accused as well. The accused must also be
protected against the possibility of false implication, particularly
where a large number of accused are involved.
14. At this stage, we would like to observe something
important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court
invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure or extraordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the
criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that
such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or
instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance,
then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into
the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because
once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused
with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc.,
then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well
drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant
would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint
are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to
constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just
enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the
FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether
the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44212
disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the
Court owes a duty to look into many other attending
circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and
above the averments and, if need be, with due care and
circumspection try to read in between the lines. The court
while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself
only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into
account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation /
registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the
course of investigation."
20. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are
analyzed in the light of the aforesaid judgments passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court then it is seen as under :-
(i) With regard to the alleged incident dated 11.6.2025 the
complainant has stated in the FIR that she went to Jeevan
Jyoti Hospital for treatment of her minor daughter where the
doctor has stated that wrong act has been committed with her
and told that he will not do her treatment and advised her to
go to government hospital for treatment.
(ii) Thereafter, on 8.6.2025 she went to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital,
Rewa where her daughter got admitted and got her MLC
done. However, in the investigation done by the police
authorities, it is found that the statement made by the
complainant is found to be incorrect.
(iii) They have recorded the statement of the doctor Santosh
Kumar Shukla who has pointed out that complainant along
with her daughter came in his clinic and made no complaint
regarding rape being committed with her. The doctor has told
that there is no child specialist in his clinic and she was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44212
advised her to go to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. Therefore, this
statement to that effect that the doctor has stated that the rape
has been committed with girl child, is found to be incorrect.
(iv) Statement of the husband of the complainant has been
recorded who has categorically stated that in the intervening
night of 7.6.2025 nobody entered his house. His daughter
was not well from yesterday; therefore, she was taken to
hospital.
(v) Statements of the tenants namely Uma Rawat, Uma Sake,
and Sanju Rawat were taken and statement of landlord of the
complainant namely Durghatiya Vishwakarma was also
taken and they all have categorically stated that the
complaint made by the complainant is incorrect and she is
habitual of making a false complaint.
(vi) Rojnamcha entry of 11/6/2025 reflects that the complainant
has not made any specific allegation with regard to the
alleged incident.
(vii) Nothing was found in MLC report dated 11.6.2025
(viii) Forensic report dated 15.07.2025 indicates that no male Y
Chromosome STR DNA profile detected.
(ix) Previous conduct of complainant.
21. However, this Court is having jurisdiction to quash the FIR and
further proceedings even if the charge sheet is filed. The aforesaid aspect
has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Anand Kumar Mohatta Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44212
Department of Home and another reported in (2019) 11 SCC 706
wherein it is observed as under :
14. First, we would like to deal with the submission of the learned
Senior Counsel for Respondent 2 that once the charge-sheet is
filed, petition for quashing of FIR is untenable. We do not see any
merit in this submission, keeping in mind the position of this
Court in Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat [Joseph Salvaraj
A. v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 7 SCC 59 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23]
. In Joseph Salvaraj A. [Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat,
(2011) 7 SCC 59 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23] , this Court while
deciding the question whether the High Court could entertain the
Section 482 petition for quashing of FIR, when the charge-sheet
was filed by the police during the pendency of the Section 482
petition, observed : (SCC p. 63, para 16)
"16. Thus, from the general conspectus of the various sections
under which the appellant is being charged and is to be
prosecuted would show that the same are not made out even
prima facie from the complainant's FIR. Even if the charge-sheet
had been filed, the learned Single Judge [Joesph Saivaraj A. v.
State of Gujarat, 2007 SCC OnLine Guj 365] could have still
examined whether the offences alleged to have been committed by
the appellant were prima facie made out from the complainant's
FIR, charge-sheet, documents, etc. or not."
16. There is nothing in the words of this section which restricts
the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent the abuse of
process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the
FIR. It is settled principle of law that the High Court can exercise
jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC even when the discharge
application is pending with the trial court [G. Sagar Suri v. State
of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636, para 7 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513. Umesh
Kumar v. State of A.P., (2013) 10 SCC 591, para 20 : (2014) 1
SCC (Cri) 338 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 237] . Indeed, it would be a
travesty to hold that proceedings initiated against a person can
be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced
and the allegations have materialised into a charge-sheet. On the
contrary it could be said that the abuse of process caused by FIR
stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge-sheet
after investigation. The power is undoubtedly conferred to
prevent abuse of process of power of any court.
22. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered
view that the prosecution against the petitioner cannot be permitted to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44212
continue even for a minute and it has to be immediately interfered with
and subsequent criminal proceedings has to be brought to an end being a
malicious prosecution which is a monstrous prosecution.
23. In such circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the
FIR vide Crime No.255/2025 dated 11.06.2025 registered at Police
Station Civil Lines, District Rewa and all subsequent proceedings and
accordingly, FIR No. 255 of 2025 dated 11.6.2025 registered at Police
Station Civil Lines, Rewa (M.P.) and subsequent proceedings are
quashed.
24. Before parting with this matter, looking to the facts and
circumstances of the present case and the conduct of complainant and
earlier records pertaining to lodging of false and frivolous complaints by
the complainant, coupled with the provisions of Section 22 of the
POCSO Act, 2012 and Sections 240 and 248 of BNS, 2023, this Court
deems fit appropriate to issue directions to police authorities. Relevant
Sections are as under :-
Section 22 of the POCSO Act, 2012
"22. Punishment for false complaint or false
information.--(1) Any person, who makes false complaint
or provides false information against any person, in respect
of an offence committed under Sections 3, 5, 7 and Section 9,
solely with the intention to humiliate, extort or threaten or
defame him, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to six months or with fine or with both"
...
Sections 240 and 248 of BNS, 2023
240. giving false information respecting an offence
committed - Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe
that an offence has been committed, gives any information
respecting that offence which he knows or believes to be
false, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to two years, or
with fine, or with both.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44212
248. False charge of offence made with intent to injure -
Whoever, with intent to cause injury to any person, institutes
or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against
that person, or falsely charges any person with having
committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful
ground for such proceeding or charge against that person -
(a) shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to five years, or
with fine which may extend to two lakh rupees, or with both;
(b) if such criminal proceeding be instituted on a false
charge of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment
for life, or imprisonment for ten years or upwards, shall be
punishable with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable
to fine."
25. As this Court has already observed that the complaint made
against the petitioner is found to be incorrect, coupled with the fact that
there are series of complaints of sexual harassment made by the
complainant without even caring the future of her own daughters just for
settling her personal grievances or for the purpose of blackmailing the
people and fetching money, which were found to be false and frivolous.
The complainant is in a habit of making false complaint which amounts
to sheer abuse of process of law and amounts to malicious prosecution.
This not amounts to humiliation, causing harassment physically and
mentally and tarnishing the image and reputation of the person made
accused, in the entire society, which snatches away the right to live with
dignity. To avoid lodging of false and frivolous complaints, the
legislature thought it appropriate to frame Section 22 in POCSO Act,
2012 and Sections 240 and 248 in BNS, 2023.
26. As this Court has already observed herein above that the series
of false and frivolous complaints have been made by the complainant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44212
against the various persons including the petitioner which after due
investigation is found to be incorrect. It appears that the complainant just
for settling her score and blackmailing the people is filing false and
frivolous complaints. It is also pertinent to mention here that despite
intimation being given to the complainant by the police authorities, the
complainant herself has chosen not to appear before this Court. On the
contrary it appears that she is watching the matter and as soon as the
investigation is completed and the police authorities have submitted the
closure report in the competent Court, she has marked her appearance
before the trial court. This again goes to show that smart play is being
made by the complainant. Under these circumstances, the complainant
cannot be let off and she should be made to suffer the consequences for
making a false complaint against the various persons including the
petitioner.
27. Similar aspect was taken note of by the High Court of
Judicature at Madras in Crl. O.P. No.1022 of 2024 and Crl.MP Nos.692
and 694 of 2024 dated 2.2.2024 parties being N. Dharmarajan vs. State
and others. Relevant paragraphs are quoted herein below :-
"9. This Court cannot draw the curtains by closing this
case since the above said Aravind and Pradeep have
manipulated the minds of the young girls and had managed to
fabricate a false complaint against the petitioner. This clearly
amounts to making a false complaint or providing false
information against a person in respect of the offence
committed under the POCSO Act, solely with the intention to
humiliate / defame the petitioner. This act on the part of the
above said Aravind and Pradeep is an offence punishable
under Section 22 of the POCSO Act.
10. In view of the above, there shall be a direction to the
1st respondent to immediately take action against Aravind and
Pradeep under Section 22 of the POCSO Act. It is also left
open to the 1st respondent to see if any other offence has been
committed by them and accordingly, charge those persons.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44212
This process shall be completed by the 1st respondent within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order."
28. Further, the Madras High Court in the case of Crl.O.P.
No.21414 of 2019 parties being N. Chandramohan vs. The State and
another, decided on 20.8.2019 has observed as under :-
"12.The object of the POCSO Act was to protect children from
offence of sexual assault, sexual harassment, etc., and that is
why the Act specifically provides for a legal presumption as to
the commission of the offence and the culpable mental state,
once a prosecution is launched under this Act. The burden of
proof is upon the accused to prove that he had no such mental
state with respect to the Act charged as an offence in that
prosecution. The consequences of prosecuting a person under
this Act are very serious and apart from providing for stringent
punishments, the person who is prosecuted virtually comes
down in the eyes of the society at large and he is virtually
shunned from the main stream of the society.
...
15. .In the considered view of this Court, the 2nd
respondent should not be let off and she should be made to
suffer the consequences for having given a false complaint
against her husband at the cost of her own daughter. The
respondent police is directed to immediately proceed against
the 2nd respondent under Section 22 of the POCSO Act for
having given a false complaint and take action against her in
accordance with law. This case should be a lesson for all those
who attempt to misuse the provisions of this Act, just to satisfy
their own selfish ends."
29. Under these circumstances, the Superintendent of Police, Rewa
is directed to take immediate action against the complainant taking note
of Section 22 (1) of the POCSO Act and under Sections 240 and 248 of
BNS, 2023 for making false and frivolous complaint against the
petitioner in accordance with law.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44212
30. It is further observed that in future if any such complaint is
made by the complainant, then before taking any coercive action, a
preliminary enquiry should be conducted by the authorities. This
direction is being given taking note of peculiar facts and circumstances of
the present case as the complainant is in the habit of making false and
frivolous complaints against various persons.
31. In above terms, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of
finally. No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
JP
