[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Aman Shah vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 February, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4378
1 MCRC-52552-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 3rd OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 52552 of 2025
AMAN SHAH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Mahendra Singh Yadav - Advocate alongwith Shri Shashank
Chaturvedi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Brijesh Kumar Tyagi - Public Prosecutor for the State.
ORDER
Heard on I.A. Nos. 23915 and 23916 of 2025, which are the
applications filed under Sections 359 and 359(2) of the BNSS, for
disposal of the case on the basis of compromise.
For the purpose of ascertaining the genuineness of the intent of the
parties to enter into a compromise, this Court had directed the parties to
appear before the Principal Registrar of this Court on 02.02.2026 and
record their statements.
In compliance with the aforesaid order of this Court, the parties
failed to appear on the scheduled dates, i.e., 24.11.2025, 25.11.2025, and
28.11.2025.
In view of the above, the aforesaid I.A.s stand rejected.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4378
2 MCRC-52552-2025
Heard on merits.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 / Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, seeking quashment of FIR in Crime No. 397/2023
registered at Police Station Bahodapur, District Gwalior (M.P.) for the
offence punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(N), 323, 506 of IPC read
with Section 5 of the M.P. Freedom of Religion Act, 2021.
As per prosecution story, the prosecutrix aged about 26 years,
resident of Chana Kothar, Police Station Kampoo, was working as GD
Staff at Chirayu Hospital. Prior thereto, she was employed at Family
Hospital, where in the year 2021 she came into contact with the accused
Aman Shah (present petitioner), who was working along with her as
hospital staff. The accused intentionally misrepresented his identity and
introduced himself to the prosecutrix as Aman Balmiki, thereby
concealing his true name and religious identity. On the basis of such
misrepresentation, the accused developed intimacy with the prosecutrix
and induced her into a relationship. About six months prior to
registration of the FIR, the accused took the prosecutrix to a room near
Tiki Wale Hanuman Ji Andi, Pahadiya, Bahodapur, where he established
physical relations with her. When the prosecutrix objected, the accused
assured her that he would marry her, and relying upon such false
assurance, the accused repeatedly had sexual intercourse with the
prosecutrix at different places in Bahodapur. Subsequently, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4378
3 MCRC-52552-2025
prosecutrix discovered the true identity of the accused upon seeing his
Aadhaar Card, which disclosed his name as Aman Shah. Upon being
confronted, the accused admitted that he belongs to the Muslim
community. Thereafter, the prosecutrix immediately discontinued all
relations with him. On 28.03.2023, the accused met the prosecutrix near
Mahre Ki Mata and showed her, her obscene videos of the prosecutrix
stored in his mobile phone, threatening that the same would be made
viral if she did not comply with his demands. The accused further
pressurized and threatened the prosecutrix to convert her religion to
Islam and to marry him. Upon refusal by the prosecutrix, the accused
assaulted her, extended criminal intimidation, and fled from the spot,
causing fear and mental trauma to the prosecutrix. On the basis of such
allegations, alleged crimed was registered against the accused.
Learned counsel for the petitoner has submitted before this Court
that the allegations levelled by the prosecutrix, who is a major woman
aged about 26 years, are false, frivolous and clearly an afterthought, as
the undisputed factual position is that the prosecutrix was fully aware of
the religious and social background of the petitioner, as both were
continuously in contact from the year 2021 till 2023. While working
together as GD Staff at Parivaar Hospital, they developed friendship and
thereafter a consensual relationship. The prosecutrix of her own volition
approached the petitioner and, beyond the boundaries of religion, both
being working adults, developed intimacy based on mutual love and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4378
4 MCRC-52552-2025
affection.
It is further submitted that a bare perusal of the FIR dated
10.05.2023 would show that the prosecutrix has alleged that the
petitioner took her to a room situated at Anandi Ki Pahadiya, Bahodapur
and, on the false pretext of marriage, repeatedly established physical
relations with her, and the religious identity of the petitioner was
revealed only upon seeing his Aadhaar Card. The said allegation is
inherently improbable and contrary to the record and both parties were
employed at Parivaar Hospital, a public workplace where concealment
of religious and social identity is practically impossible. The hospital had
issued an official identity card to the petitioner bearing his real name as
Aman Shah. The relationship between the parties continued openly and
voluntarily for nearly one and a half years, which itself belies the
allegation of fraud or deception.
It is further submitted that the prosecutrix had, on several
occasions, visited the petitioner's residence and participated in festivals
such as Id-ul-Fitr and other family gatherings. These admitted and
documented facts demolish the prosecution story that the petitioner
concealed his identity or induced the prosecutrix by fraud. The version
narrated in the FIR is therefore concocted, exaggerated and an
afterthought, intended only to harass and pressurize the
petitioner. Disputes arose between the parties due to personal differences
and upon such differences, the prosecutrix became annoyed and started
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4378
5 MCRC-52552-2025
threatening and attempting to extort the petitioner and his family
members, repeatedly stating that she would lodge false complaints of
rape and other serious offences to destroy the petitioner's life and career.
The present FIR is a direct outcome of such threats and vendetta, and not
a genuine grievance of sexual exploitation.
It is further submitted that the Hon'ble High Court, in exercise of
its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, is empowered to
interfere even in proceedings relating to cognizable offences to prevent
abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice, as
authoritatively laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604. The present case squarely
falls within the illustrative categories carved out by the Apex Court.
Further, in Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3
SCC 330, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that documents of
sterling and unimpeachable quality, which demolish the prosecution case
at the threshold, can be considered while exercising jurisdiction under
Section 482 CrPC. The documents relied upon by the petitioner satisfy
the said test.
It is further submitted that the law relating to consent and
allegations of rape on the basis of promise to marry has been
conclusively settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Dhruvaram
Murlidhar Sonar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2019 SC 327, and
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4378
6 MCRC-52552-2025
The Apex Court has held that consent under Section 375 IPC must be an
act of active and reasoned deliberation, and that to vitiate consent on the
ground of misconception of fact, the promise to marry must be false
from its inception and must bear a direct nexus to the decision to engage
in the sexual act. Mere failure to marry or subsequent refusal cannot, by
itself, constitute an offence under Section 376 IPC. In the present case,
the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at face value, do not satisfy the
said legal parameters.
In view of the aforesaid submissions, the present petition be
allowed and the FIR and all consequential proceedings be quashed.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the
petition and prayed for its rejection submitting that the present petition
under Section 482 CrPC/528 of BNSS is wholly misconceived and is an
attempt to stifle a legitimate prosecution at the threshold, as the FIR and
the material collected disclosed specific and serious allegations against
the petitioner, including offences under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 323 and
506 of the IPC and Section 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of
Religion Act. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix has categorically
alleged that the petitioner deliberately concealed his identity and
religion, induced her into a relationship on a false promise of marriage,
repeatedly subjected her to sexual exploitation, and thereafter threatened
and assaulted her while coercing her to change her religion. These
allegations, on their face, disclose cognizable offences and require
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4378
7 MCRC-52552-2025
thorough investigation and adjudication by the trial court.
It is further submitted that it is settled law that at the stage of
exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, this Court is
not required to appreciate evidence or adjudicate upon the truthfulness of
the allegations and the defence sought to be raised by the petitioner,
based on disputed questions of fact and documents, cannot be examined
in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, as the same would amount to a
mini-trial. The principles laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal
reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 do not aid the petitioner, as the allegations
in the FIR are neither absurd nor inherently improbable, and prima facie
disclosed the commission of offences. Issues relating to consent, alleged
relationship, or the intent behind the promise of marriage are matters of
evidence to be tested during trial. It is further submitted that the offences
alleged are serious in nature and have a societal impact, particularly
offences under Section 376 IPC and the provisions of the Religious
Freedom Act, which cannot be quashed on the basis of private
understanding or subsequent developments.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
In view of this Court, the allegations contained in the FIR and the
statements of the prosecutrix, if taken at their face value and accepted in
entirety, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable and serious
offences under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4378
8 MCRC-52552-2025
The contents of the FIR cannot be said to be inherently improbable or
absurd so as to warrant quashment at the threshold.
It is well settled that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 CrPC, this Court does not embark upon an enquiry as to the
truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations, nor does it appreciate
evidence or evaluate the defence of the accused. The pleas raised by the
petitioner, including those relating to consent, alleged long-standing
relationship, knowledge of identity, and reliance on documents, involve
disputed questions of fact which can only be adjudicated upon after
evidence is led before the trial court. Entertaining such pleas at this stage
would amount to conducting a mini-trial, which is impermissible in
proceedings under Section 482 CrPC/528 of BNSS.
The reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (supra),
Rajiv Thapar vs. Madan Lal Kapoor(supra), Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar
Sonar vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs.
State of Maharashtra (supra) does not advance the petitioner's case, as
the principles laid down therein are well settled; however, the present
case does not fall within any of the categories warranting exercise of
inherent powers for quashment. The allegations in the FIR disclose a
prima facie case and require full-fledged investigation and trial. The
issue whether the consent of the prosecutrix was free and voluntary or
vitiated by fraud or coercion is a matter of evidence and cannot be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4378
9 MCRC-52552-2025
conclusively determined at this stage.
This Court is also not inclined to accept the submission that the
proceedings deserve to be quashed on the basis of alleged settlement or
subsequent developments between the parties. The offences alleged are
serious in nature, have societal ramifications, and are not purely private
disputes. Quashing such proceedings at the threshold would defeat the
administration of criminal justice.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered
view that continuation of the criminal proceedings does not amount to
abuse of the process of the Court, nor does it call for interference to
secure the ends of justice. Consequently, the petition filed under Section
482 CrPC/528 of BNSS is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Needless to observe that the observations made herein are confined to
the disposal of the present petition and shall not influence the trial court
while deciding the case on merits.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
