Rajkumar vs State Of M.P.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20764
1 MCRC-27611-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 27611 of 2026
RAJKUMAR
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Amar Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned GA for the respondent/State.
WITH
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23042 of 2026
RAJKUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Amar Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned GA for the respondent/State.
Shri Vivek Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
HEARD ON : 21.07.2026
POSTED ON 29.07.2026
ORDER
Since both the petitions arise out of the same proceedings and are
interrelated, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. M.Cr.C. No. 27611/2026 has been preferred under Section 528 of the
BNSS, 2023, for quashment of the complaint case in which cognizance of offences
under Sections 493, 494, and 323 of the IPC has been taken against the revision
petitioner on the complaint of the respondent vide order dated 16.03.2021 passed
by the JMFC, Indore, resulting in RCT No. 24840/2026, and for further
quashment of the entire consequential criminal proceedings.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 29-Jul-26
6:57:24 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20764
2 MCRC-27611-2026
3. M.Cr.C. No. 23042/2026 filed by the applicant has been preferred under

Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking a direction for release on bail in the event
of his arrest in connection with the aforesaid offence.
4. Facts of the case in brief are that a complaint for taking cognizance of
offences under section 376, 323 & 294 of the IPC was preferred by the respondent
on 16.06.2020 (Annexure-A/2) before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore,
seeking cognizance of offences against the petitioner, with allegations that after
customary divorce from her husband, she was residing with her children in
Singapore Township, Indore, since 2014. The township was within the territorial
jurisdiction of Police Station Lasudiya, District Indore. In the year 2018, petitioner
Rajkumar was posted as Sub-Inspector at Police Station Lasudiya, and in the
month of April 2018, the present petitioner/accused came into contact with the
complainant and represented himself to be unmarried. The petitioner/accused used
to frequently visit the house of the complainant/respondent and, representing
himself as unmarried, took her to Maa Baglamukhi Mandir, Nalkheda, District
Agar Malwa, where he solemnized the rituals of Satpadi marriage on 21.06.2018.
Thereafter, he resided with the complainant/respondent at her residence and
continued a physical relationship at her house situated at Singapore Township,
Indore, within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Lasudiya, Indore.
5. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to Police Station Tikariya,
Mandla (M.P.), and he took the respondent/complainant with him to his new place
of posting and resided with her at the Police Line residence, Tikariya, as husband
and wife up to June 2020. During the intervening period, the petitioner/accused
took the respondent/complainant to Bhopal when he joined a training programme
from 10.02.2020 to 13.02.2020, and they stayed at Hotel Banjara, Bhopal.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 29-Jul-26
6:57:24 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20764
3 MCRC-27611-2026
Thereafter, both returned to Indore, and the respondent/complainant stayed at her

residence, where the petitioner/accused used to frequently visit and establish
physical relations. On 03.06.2020, the petitioner/accused physically assaulted the
respondent/complainant. She submitted a complaint to the Superintendent of
Police, Mandla, on 04.06.2020 and returned to her residence at Indore. Thereafter,
the petitioner paid maintenance expenses; however, subsequently, he stopped
communication with the respondent/complainant. Upon enquiry, the
respondent/complainant came to know that the petitioner was already married.
When she confronted the petitioner, he again assaulted her and used filthy words.
The respondent/complainant approached various authorities regarding her alleged
sexual exploitation, but no positive action was taken. Ultimately, she filed W.P.
No. 9623/2020 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore. Vide
order dated 05.08.2020, the petition was disposed of with a direction to file
appropriate proceedings before the competent court. Thereafter, the
respondent/wife filed a complaint seeking cognizance of offences under Sections
376, 323, and 506 of the IPC.
6. The respondent/complainant examined herself as PW-1 on 16.09.2020
(Annexure-A/3), her daughter as PW-2, her mother as PW-3, and Rameshchandra
as PW-4 (a witness to the marriage between the petitioner/accused and the
respondent/complainant). Vide order dated 16.03.2021, the Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Indore, took cognizance against the petitioner/accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 493, 494, and 323 of the IPC.
7. M.Cr.C. No. 27611/2026 has been preferred on the ground that the
respondent/complainant was previously married to "M" in the year 2000 as per
Hindu rites and customs, and the said marriage between the
respondent/complainant and "M" was never dissolved and continued to subsist.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 29-Jul-26
6:57:24 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20764
4 MCRC-27611-2026
Therefore, no offence under Sections 493 and 494 of the IPC is made out against

the petitioner. The video posted by the petitioner on social media itself reveals that
the petitioner has a minor son. Accordingly, the respondent/complainant was fully
aware of the fact that the petitioner was already married and had a child. There is
no sufficient material available on record to establish the existence of a valid
marriage between the petitioner/accused and the respondent/complainant. The
allegations, at the most, disclose a consensual relationship between two adults and
do not constitute any offence. The learned Trial Court has mechanically passed the
impugned order without properly examining the essential ingredients required to
constitute the alleged offences. The allegations made by the complainant are
inherently improbable and are not supported by any independent material
sufficient to justify the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
The petitioner had no knowledge regarding the subsequent proceedings in the
complaint and, therefore, approached this Court.
Heard.
8. Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent opposed both the
petitions.
Perused the record.
9. At the stage of taking cognizance of an offence, the standard required to
be satisfied is only the existence of sufficient grounds for proceeding further. The
statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, along with the contents of the complaint, disclose that at the time
of the first interaction between the complainant/respondent and the
petitioner/accused, the complainant was residing in Singapore Township, Indore,
which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Lasudiya, Indore.
The petitioner was posted as a Sub-Inspector at Police Station Lasudiya, Indore,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 29-Jul-26
6:57:24 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20764
5 MCRC-27611-2026
and the physical relationship between the parties was established within the

territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Lasudiya, where the petitioner was posted.
Thereafter, such acts also took place within the territorial jurisdiction of Police
Station Mandla, Tikriya.
10. Section 376C of the IPC is reproduced as below:

"376C. Sexual intercourse by a person in authority.—
Whoever, being--
( a ) in a position of authority or in a fiduciary
relationship; or
(b) a public servant; or
(c) superintendent or manager of a jail, remand home
or other place of custody established by or under any law for
the time being in force, or a women's or children's institution;
or
(d) on the management of a hospital or being on the
staff of a hospital, abuses such position or fiduciary
relationship to induce or seduce any woman either in his
custody or under his charge or present in the premises to
have sexual intercourse with him, such sexual intercourse not
amounting to the offence of rape, shall be punished with
rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which
shall not be less than five years, but which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine."
11. In Indian Penal Code the "sex by abuse of authority" has been
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 29-Jul-26
6:57:24 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20764
6 MCRC-27611-2026
recognized in dual ways. One under the sub clause of section 376(2) if proved as

non-consensual and under section 376C if proved consensual. If proved to be
consensual, it is termed as "sex by abuse of authority" and squarely falls under
section 376C of the IPC.
12. The State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992
SC 604 has elaborately considered the scope and ambit of Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C./Article 226 of the Constitution in the context of quashing the criminal
proceedings. In paragraph 102, this Court enumerated seven categories of case
where power can be exercised under Article 226/Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High
Court for quashing the criminal proceedings. Para 102 is as follows:-

"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 sufficiently defined channelised and adn
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list
of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 29-Jul-26
6:57:24 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20764
7 MCRC-27611-2026
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 ther is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act(under criminal which
proceeding a is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/o where there is specific provision in the Code or
the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of
the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly malafide
proceeding instituted and/or with attended where is with the
maliciously an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal
grudge.”
13. In the light of above, the contention that the relationship was consensual
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 29-Jul-26
6:57:24 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20764
8 MCRC-27611-2026
does not entitle the petitioner/accused to seek quashment of the proceedings

initiated against him, as the alleged acts of sexual intercourse were committed
within the territorial jurisdiction where the petitioner was posted i.e. was a person
in authority as well as a public servant. Rameshchandra (PW-4) is the person in
whose presence the petitioner and the respondent performed the marriage rituals at
Maa Baglamukhi Mandir, Nalkheda, District Agar Malwa (M.P.), despite the fact
that the petitioner was already married. The petitioner cannot seek quashment of
the cognizance order on the ground that the marriage of the
respondent/complainant with her previous husband was subsisting, particularly
when the complainant has asserted that her earlier marriage had been dissolved as
per customary law.
14. Accordingly, M.Cr.C.No.27611/2026 is dismissed.
Now, come to the relief of the anticipatory bail sought through
M.Cr.C.No.23042/2026.
15. The Second Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, rejected the prayer after
recording a finding that the petitioner/accused had been avoiding his appearance
before the Court. Initially, a bailable warrant of ₹ 10,000/- was issued against him,
followed by a warrant of arrest. When the petitioner/accused appeared on
24.04.2026, he was directed to be taken into custody; however, he escaped.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was unaware of the
proceedings, was not keeping good health, and was innocent.
16. Considering the factual scenario in toto, the application for anticipatory
bail filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is allowed. It is directed that in the
event of arrest, applicant shall be released on bail, upon his executing a personal
bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) and furnishing one
solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 29-Jul-26
6:57:24 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20764
9 MCRC-27611-2026
(Investigating Officer). The applicant shall comply with the following conditions:

-
(i) It is directed that the petitioner/accused submit the bail within 10 days
from receiving the copy of this order before the trial Court.
(ii) The petitioner/accused shall make himself available for interrogation by
a Police Officer, as and when required. They shall further abide by the other
conditions enumerated in Sub Section (2) of Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023.
(iii) The petitioner/accused shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case
so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police
Officer.
17. Failure to comply with the bail conditions will make the bail liable to
cancellation, and the trial court may cancel the bail without obtaining any further
order from this Court.
18. A copy of this order be placed in connect matter also.
Certified copy as per rules.

(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
VS

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 29-Jul-26
6:57:24 PM