Abhishek Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:42117
1 MCRC-7186-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
th
ON THE 16 OF JUNE, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 7186 of 2025
ABHISHEK YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Bhagwan Singh Thakur - Advocate for applicant.
Shri Vijay Kumar Shukla - Panel Lawyer for the State.
The complainant/respondent No.2 is present in person.
ORDER
This petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 has been preferred by the applicant seeking exercise of the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court for quashment of FIR No.52/2024 dated 06.02.2024
registered at Police Station Belbag, District Jabalpur for offences punishable under
Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and the consequential proceedings
of Sessions Trial No.202/2024 pending before the Court of VIIIth Additional
Sessions Judge, Jabalpur.
2. As per the case set up in the petition, the applicant is a Government servant
having no criminal antecedents and is maintaining his aged mother, divorced sister
and minor niece. It is averred that during the pendency of matrimonial proceedings
between the applicant and his wife at Kota, Rajasthan, he came in contact with
respondent No.2, who represented herself to be a practising advocate. According
to the applicant, respondent No.2 initially offered professional assistance in
connection with his matrimonial dispute and gradually developed personal
relations with him. It is alleged that respondent No.2 visited Jabalpur on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 30-06-2026
12:29:25

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:42117
2 MCRC-7186-2025
15.11.2022 along with one Lokendra, introduced as her brother, and during the

said visit several photographs were taken at various tourist places including
Bhedaghat and Bargi Dam. The applicant has relied upon photographs filed as
Annexure A/1.
3. It is further alleged that respondent No.2 thereafter insisted upon marriage
with the applicant despite being aware that his matrimonial dispute was still
pending. According to the applicant, upon his refusal, respondent No.2 started
extending threats and ultimately lodged a false complaint. Reliance has been
placed upon representations submitted by the applicant and his family members to
various authorities, including representations dated 07.12.2022, 27.02.2023 and
16.05.2023 filed as Annexures A/2, A/3 and A/4 respectively. The applicant
contends that respondent No.2 had earlier also implicated other persons in criminal
cases and that the present prosecution is an abuse of the process of law.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the alleged incident is stated
to have occurred on 16.11.2022 whereas the complaint was lodged only on
06.02.2024 after an unexplained delay of nearly fifteen months. It is contended
that the delay itself creates serious doubt about the prosecution story. It is further
argued that there are material contradictions between the written complaint
(Annexure A/5), the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the supplementary
statement and the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It has also been
submitted that the call detail records, forensic report and medical evidence do not
support the allegations levelled by respondent No.2.
5. Learned counsel further contended that the applicant had filed applications
under Sections 61 and 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, Section 94 of the
Evidence Act and Section 250 of BNSS before the trial Court, but the same were
rejected without proper consideration. It is argued that the order framing charge
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 30-06-2026
12:29:25

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:42117
3 MCRC-7186-2025
dated 18.12.2024 (Annexure A/10) was passed mechanically and without due

application of mind. On the strength of these submissions, it is prayed that the FIR
as well as the entire criminal proceedings be quashed.
6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposed the
petition and submitted that the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offences
and after due investigation a charge-sheet has been filed before the competent
Court. It is submitted that the trial Court, upon consideration of the material
collected during investigation, has found sufficient grounds to frame charges.
7. The respondent No.2/complainant opposed the petition and submitted that the
FIR discloses commission of serious cognizable offences and that, after due
investigation, the police has filed the charge-sheet against the petitioner. It is
contended her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. clearly
support the allegations made in the FIR and disclose a prima facie case for
offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC. It is further submitted
that respondent No.2 possesses a degree in law and was working under a senior
advocate at Kota, Rajasthan. She clarified that although she is a law graduate, she
is not an independently practising advocate. According to her, she had become
acquainted with the applicant in connection with his child custody dispute and had
visited Jabalpur at his request, where the applicant committed sexual assault upon
her. She argued that the contradictions sought to be highlighted by the applicant
are either insignificant or relate to disputed questions of fact which can only be
adjudicated after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence during the course
of trial. It is contended that the defence raised by the applicant cannot be examined
in proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023, as the inherent jurisdiction of this Court is required to be exercised sparingly
and only in exceptional circumstances. She further submits that she is already
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 30-06-2026
12:29:25

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:42117
4 MCRC-7186-2025
involved in matrimonial disputes with her husband, who, according to her, is

acting in collusion with the present applicant to pressurize and harass her. It is,
therefore, prayed that the petition be dismissed, leaving all disputed questions of
fact to be adjudicated by the trial Court on the basis of evidence led by the parties.
8. Heard and perused the case diary.
9. The scope of interference under Section 528 of the BNSS is undoubtedly
limited. Ordinarily, this Court does not embark upon appreciation of evidence or
adjudication of disputed questions of fact while exercising its inherent jurisdiction.
However, where the material collected during investigation itself demonstrates that
continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the
Court or where the prosecution is inherently improbable and does not disclose the
commission of the alleged offence, this Court is not powerless to exercise its
inherent jurisdiction to secure the ends of justice.
10. The principal allegation against the applicant is that he established physical
relations with the prosecutrix on the false promise of marriage and thereafter
threatened her. The material collected by the prosecution reveals that the
prosecutrix, in the written complaint as well as in her statement recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C., specifically described herself as an advocate practising at
Kota, Rajasthan. She further stated that she had come to Jabalpur in connection
with the child custody litigation of the applicant in her professional
capacity. However, during the course of hearing before this Court, respondent
No.2 categorically admitted that she is not a practising advocate. She stated that
although she possesses a law degree and was working under a senior advocate at
Kota, Rajasthan, she was not practising independently as an advocate. This
admission strikes at the very foundation of the prosecution story.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 30-06-2026
12:29:25

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:42117
5 MCRC-7186-2025
11. The complaint as well as the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were

premised upon the assertion that the prosecutrix came to Jabalpur in discharge of
her professional engagement as an advocate representing the applicant. The said
assertion constituted the genesis of her acquaintance with the applicant. Once the
prosecutrix herself admits that she was not a practising advocate, the very basis on
which she claims to have established contact with the applicant becomes
demonstrably false. Such a material improvement cannot be treated as a minor
discrepancy or omission. It goes to the root of the prosecution case and renders the
foundational version highly doubtful.
12. The Court has also examined the material collected during investigation. The
medical examination of the prosecutrix does not disclose any external or internal
injury suggestive of forcible sexual intercourse. More importantly, the medical
expert has not expressed any definite opinion regarding recent sexual intercourse.
Though absence of injuries by itself may not be decisive in every prosecution
under Section 376 IPC, the medical evidence in the present case does not lend any
corroboration whatsoever to the allegations levelled by the prosecutrix.
13. The prosecutrix further alleged that intoxicating or stupefying substances
were administered to her before commission of the alleged offence. However, the
investigation has not collected any forensic or scientific material indicating the
presence of any toxic or intoxicating substance in her body. No chemical
examination or forensic report supports the allegation of administration of any
intoxicant. Thus, this allegation also remains wholly unsubstantiated.
14. Another serious allegation made by the prosecutrix was that the applicant
had prepared obscene videos of her and used the same for intimidation. Ordinarily,
such an allegation is capable of objective verification through electronic evidence.
However, despite investigation, no mobile phone, storage device, electronic
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 30-06-2026
12:29:25

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:42117
6 MCRC-7186-2025
record, cloud data or any other digital evidence containing such alleged obscene

video has been recovered. There is absolutely no material indicating existence of
any electronic record of the nature alleged by the prosecutrix. In absence of
recovery of any electronic record or digital evidence, the allegations relating to
creation or transmission of obscene videos remain unsupported by any material
collected during investigation. The prosecution has also not not registered any
offence under the I.T. Act.
15. The prosecution has also failed to explain satisfactorily why, despite the
alleged incident having taken place on 16.11.2022, the complaint came to be
lodged only on 06.02.2024 after a delay of nearly fifteen months. Though delay in
lodging an FIR in cases of sexual offences is not by itself fatal, where such delay
is coupled with material inconsistencies touching the very genesis of the
prosecution case and absence of corroborative medical, scientific and electronic
evidence, the cumulative effect cannot be ignored while considering whether
continuation of prosecution would amount to abuse of the process of law.
16. This Court is conscious of the settled principle that at the stage of
considering a petition under Section 528 BNSS, the Court does not conduct a mini
trial. Nevertheless, where the prosecution version suffers from inherent
improbabilities arising from the complainant's own admissions and where the
foundational facts stand demolished by the material available on record,
compelling the accused to undergo a full-fledged criminal trial would itself amount
to misuse of the criminal process. The admission made by respondent No.2 before
this Court that she was not a practising advocate completely belies her categorical
assertions contained in the written complaint as well as in the statement recorded
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that she was practising as an advocate at Kota and had
visited Jabalpur in that professional capacity to pursue the applicant's child
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 30-06-2026
12:29:25

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:42117
7 MCRC-7186-2025
custody litigation. This contradiction is not peripheral but goes to the very genesis

of the relationship between the parties. Coupled with the absence of medical
corroboration, absence of forensic evidence regarding administration of
intoxicating substances, non-recovery of the alleged obscene videos and absence
of any electronic evidence supporting the allegations, this Court is satisfied that
continuation of the criminal proceedings would be nothing but an abuse of the
process of law.
17. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS exists precisely to
prevent such abuse and to secure the ends of justice. The facts of the present case
fall within the exceptional category warranting interference by this Court.
18. Consequently, the petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. FIR
No.52/2024 dated 06.02.2024 registered at Police Station Belbag, District Jabalpur
for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and
all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including Sessions Trial
No.202/2024 pending before the Court of VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge,
Jabalpur, are hereby quashed. The applicant stands discharged from the aforesaid
criminal proceedings. It is, however, made clear that the observations made herein
are confined to the adjudication of the present petition under Section 528 BNSS
and shall not be construed as an expression on any other civil or criminal
proceedings, if any, between the parties.
The petition stands allowed.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI)
JUDGE
pn

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 30-06-2026
12:29:25