[Cites 18, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raghvendra @ Sonu Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:212
1 MCRC-59543-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
ON THE 5 th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 59543 of 2022
RAGHVENDRA @ SONU TOMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Aditya Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikram Pippal - Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the
petitioner for quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.500/2022 registered at Police
Station Porsa, District Morena for offence punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)
(n), 323, 294, 506 and 450 of IPC.
2. According to the prosecution's case, the complainant submitted a written
application to the concerned police station alleging rape against the accused,
Raghavendra alias Sonu Tomar. It is stated that Raghavendra Tomar had been
sexually exploiting the prosecutrix for many years. Consequently, out of fear, she
moved to Gwalior, where she worked hard to support and educate her child. On
19.10.2022, she returned to her village, Budhara, for the Diwali festival. On
20.10.2022, at approximately 11:00 PM, Raghavendra Tomar entered her house
and forcibly raped her. When she resisted and asked him to stop, he threatened to
kill her before leaving. On 22.10.2022, the accused again entered her house, raped
her, and repeated his death threats, warning her that he would kill her if she spoke
out. On 24.10.2022, Raghavendra returned to her house while she was inside her
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:212
2 MCRC-59543-2022
room with the door locked from the inside. He demanded that she open the gate;
when she refused, he struck the gate with a stick, shouted abuses, and left.
Because the accused lives near her, on 25.10.2022, at 2:00 PM, she approached
him near the temple. She confronted him, stating that he had made her life
miserable and warned him that if he came to her house again, she would report
him. In response, Raghavendra abused her, threw her to the ground, and beat her
with a stick. As a result, she sustained injuries to her shoulder, back, ankles,
thighs, and legs. Due to extreme fear, she was unable to report the matter to the
police station immediately. Under these circumstances, the aforementioned
criminal charges were lodged against the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is innocent
and has been falsely implicated. It is a clear case of abuse of process of law.
Allegedly, the incident occurred on 20.10.2022 and 22.10.2022, however, F.I.R.
has been lodged after a delay of almost 9 days i.e on 29.10.2022, for which no
plausible explanation has been given. After the present F.I.R., another F.I.R. was
filed by the prosecutrix against the petitioner on 25.10.2022, however, in that
F.I.R. there is no mention about any incident of rape. The prosecutrix has
registered as many as seven cases against the present petitioner-accused. Out of
seven cases, in six cases the petitioner has been acquitted by different Courts,
which observed that the petitioner and prosecutrix had consensual relationship and
they are also having a child. The further argument is that the prosecutrix has also
filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance of child
from the petitioner in terms of permanent alimony wherein the petitioner has made
a gift deed in favour of his child. These facts show that the prosecutrix is habitual
of filing false cases against present petitioner. In these circumstances, and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:212
3 MCRC-59543-2022
considering the factual background of the case, the matter is squarely covered by
various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein consensual
relationships under a promise of marriage do not attract the ingredients of Section
376 IPC.
4. It is further submitted that the allegations levelled by the prosecutrix in
the FIR are false, concocted, and motivated. The alleged threats by the petitioner
are also unsubstantiated by any legal evidence. Hence, the entire FIR stands
vitiated and does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence.
5. It is further submitted that the relationship between the prosecutrix and
the petitioner was purely consensual. Both parties spent considerable time
together of their own free will. Furthermore, as per her own admission, they have
now separated, as evidenced by the execution of a gift deed in favor of his son. In
such circumstances, the aforementioned sections pertaining to rape are not
attracted by the facts and circumstances of the present case.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State while opposing
the prayer for quashing of the FIR, submit that the allegations leveled in the FIR,
when taken at face value, clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offences
under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 323, 294, 506, and 450 of the IPC. The petitioner,
allegedly under the threat of death [or false promise of marriage], established
repeated physical relations with the prosecutrix and thereafter refused to
solemnize the marriage. The contents of the FIR make out a prima facie case;
hence, the FIR cannot be quashed at the threshold. It is further submitted that
whether the consent of the prosecutrix was free and voluntary, or was obtained
under the threat of death, is a matter for trial and requires the appreciation of
evidence. In light of these circumstances, the respondent/State prays for the
dismissal of the present petition
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:212
4 MCRC-59543-2022
7. Heard counsel for the parties and peruse the record.
8. A perusal of the FIR and the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under
Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. reveals that the alleged incidents occurred on
20.10.2022 and 22.10.2022 . However, the FIR was lodged after a significant delay
of nine days, on 29.10.2022, for which no plausible explanation has been offered.
Notably, on 25.10.2022--prior to the lodging of the present FIR--another FIR
was filed by the prosecutrix against the petitioner; however, that earlier report
contained no mention of any incident of rape.
9. The prosecutrix has registered as many as seven cases against the
petitioner. Out of these, the petitioner has been acquitted in six cases by various
Courts, which observed that the parties shared a consensual relationship and have
a child together. It is an admitted fact that the prosecutrix also filed an application
under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance for the child, which
resulted in a settlement where the petitioner executed a gift deed in favor of the
child.
10. At the time of the alleged incident, the prosecutrix was an adult and
mature woman of approximately 31 years. The record indicates that the petitioner
and the prosecutrix were well-acquainted for a long time and were involved in a
long-standing love affair involving consensual physical relations. It is further
evident that the prosecutrix has habitually implicated the petitioner in false cases
since 2016. Given these circumstances, the aforementioned FIR deserves to be
quashed.
11. However, before arriving at any conclusive finding on the basis of the
material available on record and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for
the parties, it is appropriate to first take note of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:212
5 MCRC-59543-2022
Supreme Court and the various High Courts on the issue.
12. The Supreme Court in case of Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Anr. [Criminal Appeal No.233 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Cri) No.
11218 of 2019], has observed as under:-
"10. Bearing in mind the tests which have been enunciated in the above
decision [Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9
SCC 608 : (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 903] , we are of the view that even
assuming that all the allegations in the FIR are correct for the purposes
of considering the application for quashing under Section 482CrPC, no
offence has been established. There is no allegation to the effect that
the promise to marry given to the second respondent was false at the
inception. On the contrary, it would appear from the contents of the FIR
that there was a subsequent refusal on the part of the appellant to
marry MCRC-54176-2023 the second respondent which gave rise to
the registration of the FIR. On these facts, we are of the view that the
High Court was in error in declining to entertain the petition under
Section 482CrPC on the basis that it was only the evidence at trial
which would lead to a determination as to whether an offence was
established."
13. The Supreme Court in case of S tate of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal
and others reported in of 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has laid down the
criteria/categories as to under what circumstances the Court should exercise the
power provided under Section 482 of CrPC or extraordinary jurisdiction provided
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to quash the proceedings. The
categories of the cases in which interference is permissible quoted by the Supreme
Court, are as under:-
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law
enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise
of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers
under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced
above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration
wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it
may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and
sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulate and
to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
should be exercised:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:212
6 MCRC-59543-2022
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the
complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a
case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other
materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable
offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section
156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the
purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint
and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable
offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation
is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd
and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can
ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or
the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of
the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide
and/or where the proceeding 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.
14. As per the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, the
present case falls within category Nos.1, 3 and 5 as laid down by the Supreme
Court in the said case.
15. In view of aforesaid, Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 323, 294, 506 and 450 of
IPC are not made out against the present petitioner. Continuation of the criminal
proceedings would, therefore, amount to an abuse of the process of
law. Accordingly, the prosecution initiated against him deserves to be quashed in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:212
7 MCRC-59543-2022
light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra) ,
while exercising the inherent powers conferred under Section 482 of the CrPC.
16. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The FIR
registered against the petitioner vide Crime No.500/2022 registered at Police
Station Porsa, District Morena for offence punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)
(n), 323, 294, 506 and 450 of IPC is hereby quashed, along with all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom.
17. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed and disposed of. No order as to
costs.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
(LJ*)
