Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arunendra Kumar Gautam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 July, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
1
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:31261
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
A T J A B A L P UR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
WRIT PETITION No. 28469 of 2022
ARUNENDRA KUMAR GAUTAM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ankit Saxena - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri A. s. Baghel - Government Advocate for the respondent no.1 / State.
Respondent no. 2 is present in person.
Reserved on : 07-07-2025"
Pronounced on : 16 -7-2025"
ORDER
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the FIR
registered at Crime No.203/2021 by the Police Station M.P. Nagar,
Bhopal for offence under Sections 376, 376 (2) (n), 294 and 506 of IPC
against him and also the entire criminal proceedings pending in ST
No.1100/2021 before the 10th Additional Session Judge, Bhopal.
2. Facts giving rise to this petition, in short, are that respondent no. 2 /
complainant came in contact with the petitioner through social media i.e.
Facebook. They exchanged their mobile numbers with each other and
started talking on phone. On 7.10.2019 the respondent no. 2 met with the
2
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:31261
petitioner at Lake View, Bhopal whereupon the petitioner proposed the
respondent no. 2. Thereafter, on 11.11.2019 the petitioner called the
respondent no. 2 at M.P. Nagar, Bhopal and the petitioner took the
respondent no. 2 at the Heavens Cage lounge and Restaurant which is
situated behind Batra Hospital. It is alleged that the petitioner had
developed forcible sexual intercourse with her on the false pretext of
marriage. Thereafter, they kept on talking to each other. After some time,
when the respondent no. 2 asked the petitioner to marry, he stopped
talking to her and started abusing her. Respondent no. 2 narrated her
lamented story to her parents who talked the parents of the petitioner and
parents of the respondent no. 2 also visited the house of the petitioner
situated at Amdara, District Satna for having discussion on marriage, but
the petitioner refused to marry her and also blocked her mobile number.
Respondent no. 2 made complaint in C.M. Helpline and at other places
but the same were withdrawn by the respondent no. 2 because she
believed that the petitioner would marry her at a later point in time. But
now the respondent no. 2 has lodged a report in Police Station M.P.
Nagar, Bhopal regarding making of forcible physical relations on false
pretext of marriage against the petitioner, upon which, FIR is registered
at Crime no. 203/2021 for offence under Sections 376, 376 (2) (n), 294
and 506 of IPC against the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent no. 2
was sent for medical examination wherein the respondent no. 2 admitted
the fact before the concerned Doctor that she herself entered into physical
relationship with the petitioner with her own consent and will. Thereafter,
her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded before the
3
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:31261
concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal, wherein she stated that
she developed physical relationship with the petitioner with her own
consent and will. Thereafter, the petitioner had moved an application
under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail before the Session
Court, Bhopal which was rejected by 12th Additional Sessions Judge,
Bhopal. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed an application under Section
438 of Cr.P.C. before the High Court which was registered as M.Cr.C.
No.22223/2021 and the objections were raised by the respondent no. 2.
However, the High Court was pleased to allow the application vide order
dated 9.8.2021. Statement of the respondent no. 2 / prosecutrix was again
recorded by the police authorities wherein she had changed her version.
The Police after completion of the investigation filed the charge sheet on
15.4.2021 before the concerned Court.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that looking to the
facts and circumstances of the case and the allegations made against the
petitioner, prima facie no offence under Sections 376, 376 (2) (n), 294
and 506 of IPC is made out. However, the learned trial Court has framed
the charges under the aforesaid Sections. Being aggrieved by the
registration of FIR as well as framing of charges, the petitioner has
preferred this petition seeking quashing of the FIR and consequent thereto
the entire criminal proceedings.
4. At the outset it is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the
respondent no. 2 / prosecutrix is major and she is already married to one
Monu Sharma.
4
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:31261
5. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that earlier the respondent no. 2 /
victim got married to one Monu Sharma. The marriage was solemnized at
Arya Samaj Vedic Sanskar Trust, Delhi on 21-06-2019. In this regard, a
marriage certificate was also issued on 21-06-2019. It is argued that a
similar FIR was also registered at Crime No. 43 of 2023 for offence under
Sections 376 (2) (n), 294 and 323 of IPC at Police station Omti district,
Jabalpur by the respondent no.2 against one Jitendra Kumar Mishra,
which was later-on quashed by this Court vide its order date 30-11-2023
in MCRC No.38157/2023. The Court while quashing the FIR had made
certain observations that the prosecutrix is using the same modus
operandi for lodging FIRs against various persons, despite of the fact that
she herself is married to one Monu Sharma and has not taken divorce
from Monu Sharma till date. The Court has made further observation that
it is clear that Prosecutrix ‘X’ is misusing the provisions of law to grind
her own axe and further directed to upload the order and observations
made by this Court in interoperable Criminal Justice System, so that the
police stations shall have information in advance regarding the modus
operandi of the Prosecutrix ‘X’ in laying honey trap and falsely
implicating innocent persons in false cases. It is further argued that the
said order has attained finality as the same is not put to challenge at any
point of time. The similar is the situation in the case. It is submitted that
the petitioner had entered into physical relationship with the consent of
the respondent no.2 as he did not know that she is already married to one
Monu Sharma way back in 2019. This fact was not disclosed by the
respondent no.2 to the petitioner at any point of time. As soon as he came
5
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:31261
to know about earlier marriage of the respondent no.2, he refused to
marry her because that marriage with Monu Sharma was still in existence
as no documents pertaining to divorce from Monu Sharma were placed
before him. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that on false
pretext of marriage, the physical relations were made by the petitioner.
6. It is further pointed out that the statement of the victim was also recorded
by the Registrar (J-II) in pursuance to the order dated 19-12-2023 passed
by this Court. The same is placed before the Court in a sealed cover for
perusal wherein she has stated that in the year 2019 she got married to
Monu Sharma forcefully and after marriage, she is not residing with him.
She admitted the fact of lodging an FIR against one Jitendra Kumar
Mishra and further admitted the fact that the FIR lodged by her was
quashed, meaning thereby she is aware of quashment of an FIR against
Jitendra Kumar Mishra way back in the year 2023 itself and has chosen
not to challenge the said order at any point of time. She has made a
statement that she wants to take the case back and does not want to
proceed in the matter looking to her future as there was a possibility of
her getting married somewhere. She was under an apprehension that in
case, she does not take the case back; there is a possibility that the
petitioner and other too will discredit her. In support of his contentions he
has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Dhariwal Tobacco Products Ltd. Versus State of
Maharashtra, SCC 2009 (2) P. 370, Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana
(2013) 7 SCC 675, Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs. State of Maharashtra
(2019) 18 SCC 191, Maheshwar Tigga vs. State of Jharkhand (2020) 10
6
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:31261
SCC 108 and prayed for quashment of the FIR and consequential
proceedings thereto.
7. Counsel appearing for the State has argued in support of the prosecution
case and submitted that the investigation is over and the charge sheet has
been filed in the matter for the alleged offences. It is further submitted
that the allegations levelled against the petitioner by the victim /
prosecutrix are serious in nature. Her statement under Section 164 of
Cr.P.C. recorded before the JMFC on 16.4.2021 was virtually repeating
the contents of the FIR. Therefore, once she has specifically stated
against the petitioner, no case for quashing of the FIR is made out.
However, he has not disputed the fact that she is already married to Monu
Sharma and the FIR lodged against Jitendra Kumar Mishra in the similar
circumstances was quashed by this Court wherein the Court has made
certain observations against the respondent no. 2 / complainant.
8. Respondent no. 2 / victim is present before this Court. She was asked that
whether she is willing to argue the mater herself or wants to address the
arguments through a counsel, she submits that she herself will argue the
case. She was further asked that whether she is ready to argue the matter
today, she submits that she will address the Court and is ready for
arguments today. Thus, the matter is taken up for consideration.
9. It is the contention of the respondent no. 2 that she entered into a sexual
relationship with the petitioner solely for the reason that he had promised
to marry her and this relationship continued for some time and was
broken when the promise of marriage was not fulfilled by the petitioner.
In other words, the main allegation of the victim / respondent no. 2 is that
7
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:31261
had it not been for the promise of marriage made by the petitioner, she
would have never entered into a physical relationship with him and
considering that this was done by cheating, the same amounts to rape.
Further contention is that there was confabulation in the family of the
petitioner for the marriage of the petitioner with her as they were in
continuous conversation. They used to frequently meet each other and on
the pretext of marriage, she made physical relationship with the
petitioner. But, now as the petitioner and his family members have
refused to solemnize marriage with her coupled with the fact that
subsequently the petitioner had also refused to marry her, she was having
no other choice except to make complaint against the petitioner. She has
stated that she was compelled to get married to one Monu Sharma in
Arya Samaj Vedic Sanskar Trust, Delhi. She had also lodged an FIR
against Monu Sharma in the year 2019 resulting in arrest of Monu
Sharma and in order to save himself from a criminal case, he solemnized
marriage with respondent no. 2 in Arya Samaj Mandir but after that, she
was not residing with Monu Sharma and that case is still pending against
Monu Sharma at Dwarika Court, New Delhi. She has further contended
that as far as the quashment of the FIR regarding other accused Jitendra
Kumar Mishra is concerned, she will challenge the order of quashment of
the FIR before the higher Court. It is further contended by her that her
statement is due to be recorded before the Trial Court. Since, she has
clearly stated in her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the
trial Court against the petitioner, therefore, no case for quashment of the
FIR is made out. She submits that the petitioner has spoiled her entire life
8
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:31261
and if he refused to marry her now, then, her entire life would be ruined,
therefore, she wants to continue with the prosecution and she has prayed
for dismissal of the petition.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and the respondent no. 2 / victim
and perused the record.
11. From a perusal of the record it is revealed that the FIR has been registered
for offence under sections 376, 376 (2) (n), 294 and 506 of IPC at Crime
No. 203/2021 by Police Station M. P. Nagar, Bhopal, wherein the
complainant / respondent no. 2 has alleged against the present petitioner
that the petitioner had physical relationship with her against her consent
by making a false promise that he would marry her but subsequently he
did not marry her. From perusal of the FIR it is seen that the complainant
/ respondent no.2 is a major woman. His father is working as Head
Constable in SF. The petitioner as well as complainant came in contact
through Facebook and starting chatting to each other. They also
exchanged their mobile numbers. On 11.11.2019 physical relations were
developed between them. She consented to have physical relationship
with the petitioner on the misconception of fact that he would marry her
because of the promise made by the petitioner that he would ultimately
marry her and thereafter, on several occasions, physical relations were
developed between them. But later on, when the petitioner started
neglecting her and stopped talking to her, she narrated her tale of woe to
her parents. She had visited the petitioner’ house but he refused to marry
her. Thereafter, she made a complaint on CM Helpline. However, the said
complaint was taken back as she was expecting that the petitioner would
9
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:31261
marry her but later on, he did not marry her and ultimately, complaint
was made on 15.4.2021. Her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C was
recorded before the JMFC on 16.4.2021 wherein she has virtually
reiterated the same story. However, in addition, she stated that in
February, 2020 she narrated the entire incident to her patents including
making of physical relation by the petitioner on the pretext of marriage
and thereafter, in October, 2022 the parents of the petitioner as well as
parents of the respondent no. 2 visited each other’s house but thereafter,
the petitioner had refused to marry her and blocked her mobile number.
In January 2021, she had gone to the petitioner’ house where he abused
her as well as her father too and a threat was also given to her. Thereafter,
complaint was made. From perusal of the entire statement, one thing is
clear that she is a major woman and well aware of the pros and cons of
the act which she is committing. She has not disclosed the factum of her
earlier marriage with Monu Sharma in the complaint as well as in the
statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., which makes it clear
that the factum of her marriage with Monu Sharma was not even told to
the present petitioner.
12. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that there was no dispute with
regard to marriage to be done with the complainant but since the factum
of marriage of the respondent no. 2 with Monu Sharma came to the
knowledge of the petitioner, he had refused to marry her as her marriage
with Monu Sharma was still in existence and there are no documents
placed before this Court or shown to the petitioner that her marriage is
dissolved by any Competent Court, therefore, until and unless the
10
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:31261
marriage is in existence, there is no possibility of marrying her again as
the same amounts to an offence of bargaining. As soon as the fact of
marriage of the complainant with Monu Sharma came to the knowledge
of the petitioner, he refused to marry her. Therefore, it cannot be said that
on false pretext of marriage, the petitioner had physical relationship with
the complainant.
13. The factum of marriage with Monu Sharma is also not disputed by the
respondent no.2. The documents are placed on record along with IA
No.1543/2024 i.e. certificate of marriage issued by Arya Samaj Vedic
Saskar Trust, Delhi on 21.6.2019 wherein the date of marriage is shown
as 21.6.2019. It is also not disputed that the said marriage has not yet
been dissolved and the same is in existence. The argument of the
complainant before this Court is that it was a forceful marriage and she
does not acknowledge the said marriage. However, the fact remains that
her statement was recorded by the Registrar (J-II) in pursuance to the
order of this Court dated 19.12.2023 wherein she clearly stated that she
got married to Monu Sharma because Monu Sharma wanted to save
himself from the criminal case registered against him in the year 2019, in
which, he was sent to jail and after getting the bailed out, he solemnized
marriage with the complainant. The record indicates that a similar FIR
was also registered against one Jitendra Kumar Mishra, resident of
Jabalpur wherein almost similar allegations were made and that FIR was
quashed by this Court in M.Cr.C.No.38157/2023 vide order dated
30.11.2023. While quashing of the FIR, the Court had made certain
comments regarding modus operandi of the complainant that she is
11
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:31261
habitual of lodging such type of FIR and further directed the Police
authorities to upload the modus operandi of the victim in interoperable
Criminal Justice System as she has falsely implicated the innocent
persons in false cases. The relevant portion of the observations made by
the Court are as under :-
11. Three FIRs have been lodged by the
complainant ‘X’. In all FIRs, complainant/
prosecutrix met with the accused persons through
facebook chats and later on, went to meet with the
accused persons. They went to a hotel and
thereafter, FIRs have been lodged. In all cases, it
was alleged that false promise to marry has been
made by the accused, which is the basis of FIRs.
12. On going through the facts of the case, it is
found that prosecutrix ‘X’ has already married to
one Monu Sharma in Arya Samaj Mandir. She has
also lodged report of rape against him. Later on,
she filed two more FIRs against victims. She is
already a married woman; therefore, a common
man with average reasoning will not believe that
she will be misled by false promise to marry by
another person. There is little or no possibility that
she will believe a person that he will marry her and
will establish physical relationship with her, when
she herself is not a divorced or not able to do
12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:31261second marriage. She is using same modus
operandi for lodging of FIRs. In these
circumstances, it is clear that prosecutrix ‘X’ is
misusing the provisions of law to grind her own
axe.
13. In these circumstances, this Court found this
case to be fit for quashing of FIR. Petition filed
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is allowed. FIR in
connection with Crime No.43/2023 registered at
Police Station – Omti District Jabalpur is quashed.
14. Copy of this order be sent to concerned Police
Station and information regarding the
complainant/prosecutrix ‘X’ be uploaded in inter
operable Criminal Justice System so that Police
Stations shall have information in advance
regarding the modus operandi of the prosecutrix in
laying honey trap and falsely implicating innocent
persons in false cases.”
14. Record further indicates that there are three FIRs registered against the
innocent persons, one against Monu Sharma, second against Jitendra
Kumar Mishra and third is against the present petitioner, which clearly
goes to show that as the petitioner has not made any physical relations
with the complainant without her consent rather it is the victim who has
suppressed the information of marriage with Monu Sharma from the
petitioner and consented for physical relationship with the petitioner.
13
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:31261
15. Hon’ble The Supreme Court in several cases has categorically held that
if the parties are major and the victim giving consent to physical relation
is aware of pros and cons of her act of making physical relations does not
fall in the category of offence under Sections 376 and 376 (2) of the IPC
and registered a criminal case and subsequently, criminal proceedings
initiated against the petitioner / accused is abuse of process of law.
16. The Supreme court in the case of Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar (supra)
has held as under :-
“20. Thus, there is a clear distinction between rape
and consensual sex. The court, in such cases, must
very carefully examine whether the complainant
had actually wanted to marry the victim or had
mala fide motives and had made a false promise to
this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the later falls
within the ambit of cheating or deception. There is
also a distinction between mere breach of a
promise and not fulfilling a false promise. If the
accused has not made the promise with the sole
intention to seduce the prosecutrix to indulge in
sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.
There may be a case where the prosecutrix agrees
to have sexual intercourse on account of her love
and passion for the accused and not solely on
account of the misconception created by accused,
or where an accused, on account of circumstances
14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:31261which he could not have foreseen or which were
beyond his control, was unable to marry her
despite having every intention to do. Such cases
must be treated differently. If the complainant
had any mala fide intention and if he had
clandestine motives, it is a clear case of rape. The
acknowledged consensual physical relationship
between the parties would not constitute an
offence under Section 376 of the IPC.
17. The Supreme court in the case of Maheshwar Tigga (supra) has held as
under :-
13. The question for our consideration is whether
the prosecutrix consented to the physical
relationship under any misconception of fact with
regard to the promise of marriage by the appellant
or was her consent based on a fraudulent
misrepresentation of marriage which the appellant
never intended to keep since the very inception of
the relationship. If we reach the conclusion that he
intentionally made a fraudulent misrepresentation
from the very inception and the prosecutrix gave
her consent on a misconception of fact, the offence
of rape under Section 375 IPC is clearly made out.
It is not possible to hold in the nature of evidence
on record that the appellant obtained her consent at
15
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:31261
the inception by putting her under any fear.
Under Section 90 IPC a consent given under fear
of injury is not a consent in the eyes of law. In the
facts of the present case we are not persuaded to
accept the solitary statement of the prosecutrix that
at the time of the first alleged offence her consent
was obtained under fear of injury.
14. Under Section 90 IPC, a consent given under a
misconception of fact is no consent in the eyes of
law. But the misconception of fact has to be in
proximity of time to the occurrence and cannot be
spread over a period of four years. It hardly needs
any elaboration that the consent by the appellant
was a conscious and informed choice made by her
after due deliberation, it being spread over a long
period of time coupled with a conscious positive
action not to protest. The prosecutrix in her letters
to the appellant also mentions that there would
often be quarrels at her home with her family
members with regard to the relationship, and
beatings given to her.
18. The Supreme court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State
of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608 has held as under :-
“20. The allegations in the FIR do not on their face
indicate that the promise by the appellant was
16
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:31261false, or that the complainant engaged in sexual
relations on the basis of this promise. There is no
allegation in the FIR that when the appellant
promised to marry the complainant, it was done in
bad faith or with the intention to deceive her. The
appellant’s failure in 2016 to fulfil his promise
made in 2008 cannot be construed to mean the
promise itself was false. The allegations in the FIR
indicate that the complainant was aware that there
existed obstacles to marrying the appellant since
2008, and that she and the appellant continued to
engage in sexual relations long after their getting
married had become a disputed matter. Even
thereafter, the complainant travelled to visit and
reside with the appellant at his postings and
allowed him to spend his weekends at her
residence. The allegations in the FIR belie the case
that she was deceived by the appellant’s promise
of marriage. Therefore, even if the facts set out in
the complainant’s statements are accepted in
totality, no offence under Section 375 of the IPC
has occurred.”
19. If the aforesaid settled proposition of law is applied to the facts and
circumstances of the present case, it is clear that the petitioner was
initially willing to marry the complainant but as she had suppressed the
17
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:31261
factum of earlier marriage with Monu Sharma, the petitioner did not
marry her. She had made physical relations on several occasions but she
did not disclose that she is already married to one Monu Sharma and
eventually made complaint against the petitioner. Her statement recorded
under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate does not disclose that
she is already married. As soon as the factum of marriage of complainant
came to the knowledge of the petitioner coupled with the fact that the said
marriage is still in existence and is not dissolved at any point of time, he
refused to marry her. The same cannot be said to be unintentional denial
of marriage and it also does not amount to making of physical
relationship on false pretext of marriage. The intention of parties is to be
gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present
case, as there is no disclosure of earlier marriage on the part of the
complainant, it cannot be said that the petitioner has intentionally and
deliberately made physical relations on false pretext of marriage with the
complainant coupled with the fact that the FIR lodged against Jintendra
Kumar Mishra has already been quashed by this Court in M.Cr.C.
38157/2023 vide order dated 30.11.2023 while making certain comments
against the modus operandi of the victim i.e. the respondent no. 2 herein.
20. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments has held that the
mere fact that physical relations were established pursuant to a promise to
marry will not amount to a rape in every case. In order for the offence of
rape to be made out, two conditions need to be satisfied i.e. that the
promise of marriage was made by the accused solely with a view to
obtain consent for sexual relations without having any intention of
18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:31261
fulfilling said promise from the very beginning, and that the false promise
of marriage had a direct bearing on the prosecutrix giving her consent for
sexual relations. From a perusal of the record, it is clear that this was a
case of a consensual relationship from the beginning. Even if the case of
the prosecutrix is accepted, it does not appear that the initial promise to
marry was in bad faith. It was only the subsequent circumstances that
prevented fulfillment of alleged false promise to marry. Resultantly, the
relationship turned sour which has given rise to the present FIR.
21. 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 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
19
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:31261Procedure 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;
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,
20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:31261when 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;
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
21
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:31261powers 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
22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:31261
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.”
22. On perusal of the said guidelines it is clear that the FIR can be quashed at
any stage if it amounts to abuse of process of law. Further, there is
already an observation made by this Court in earlier round of litigation
against the victim that her modus operandi is amounting to misuse of
process of law. Therefore, this court deems fit appropriate to quash the
FIR registered against the petitioner.
23. In the light of the afore-quoted judgments and the observations made
during the course of the order, if the FIR and the further proceedings
against the petitioner are not obliterated and the trial is continued, it
would, on the face of it, become an abuse of the process of law and result
in miscarriage of justice.
24. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the FIR registered at Crime
No.203/2021 by the Police Station M. P. Nagar, Bhopal for offence under
Sections 376, 376 (2) (n), 294 and 506 of IPC against the petitioner
Arunendra Kumar Gautam is hereby quashed and the entire criminal
proceedings pending in ST No.1100/2021 before the 10th Additional
Session Judge, Bhopal against the petitioner is also quashed.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
JP
Digitally signed by JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA
Date: 2025.07.17 10:59:51 +05’30’
[ad_1]
Source link