Dr. Girja Shankar Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33354
1 MCRC-50160-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
th
ON THE 29 OF OCTOBER, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 50160 of 2025
CNR No.: MPHC030279392025
DR. GIRJA SHANKAR GUPTA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR
Appearance:
Shri Upendra Yadav - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs. Kalpana Parmar - PP for the State.
None for respondent No.2/though served.
ORDER
This petition under Section 528 of the 2023 BNSS has been preferred
by the petitioner seeking quashment of FIR registered at Crime No.356/2025
at Police Station Kampoo, District Gwalior, for the offences punishable
under Sections 74, 75 and 351(3) of the BNS and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)
(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that respondent
No.2/prosecutrix is working as a Nursing Officer in the Nephrology
Department of Super Speciality Hospital, Gwalior. The present petitioner
was serving as Superintendent of Super Speciality Hospital, Gwalior, and
was discharging administrative functions in the said institution.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/3/2026
3:42:28 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33354
2 MCRC-50160-2025
3. As per the prosecution story, on 28.10.2025 at about 11:30 a.m.,

respondent No.2 went to the chamber of co-accused Dr. Shivam Yadav, who
was the Head of the Nephrology Department, for marking her attendance and
receiving the briefing. It is alleged that Dr. Shivam Yadav spoke to her in
abusive language and stated that unless she followed the instructions of the
present petitioner, Dr. Girija Shankar Gupta, and himself, she would continue
to face harassment. It is further alleged that he asked her to compromise and
maintain physical relations with the present petitioner and threatened that
even if she made complaints, no action would be taken against them. It is
also alleged that Dr. Shivam Yadav caught hold of her hand with an
improper intention and thereafter threatened her. On the basis of the
aforesaid allegations, the impugned FIR came to be registered against the
present petitioner and co-accused Dr. Shivam Yadav for the aforementioned
offences.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR,
even if taken at its face value and accepted in its entirety, does not disclose
the commission of any offence by the present petitioner. It is contended that
the allegations regarding abusive language, physical contact, criminal
intimidation and the alleged conduct of outraging the modesty of respondent
No.2 have been specifically attributed to co-accused Dr. Shivam Yadav.
There is no allegation in the FIR that the present petitioner was physically
present at the place of occurrence, that he personally communicated with
respondent No.2 at the relevant time or that he himself used any abusive or
caste-related language against her. Learned counsel further submits that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/3/2026
3:42:28 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33354
3 MCRC-50160-2025
mere reference to the name of the present petitioner in the alleged

conversation between respondent No.2 and co-accused Dr. Shivam Yadav
cannot, by itself, constitute sufficient material to prosecute the present
petitioner for the offences alleged. It is contended that the FIR does not
disclose any specific overt act on the part of the petitioner demonstrating his
participation, prior meeting of minds or any agreement or understanding
with the co-accused for commission of the alleged offences. It is further
argued that the petitioner was discharging his official responsibilities as
Superintendent of the hospital and was duty-bound to act upon complaints
received from the Head of the Department and other employees. The
departmental record demonstrates that complaints against respondent No.2
existed much prior to registration of the impugned FIR and that
administrative action was initiated in accordance with the established
procedure. The issuance of a show-cause notice on 28.10.2025, on the basis
of a complaint received from the Head of the Department, has been projected
as the immediate cause for lodging the impugned FIR. Learned counsel for
the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the subsequent
allegations made by respondent No.2 in her reply regarding alleged
WhatsApp messages and communications asking her to meet the petitioner at
a hotel or at a particular place. It is submitted that these allegations are
general in nature and no specific particulars, such as the relevant dates,
contents of the alleged communications or other supporting material, have
been demonstrated before this Court so as to establish the petitioner's
involvement in the alleged incident.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/3/2026
3:42:28 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33354
4 MCRC-50160-2025
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the

allegations have been levelled against him on account of administrative and
disciplinary action initiated against respondent No.2 in discharge of his
official duties. It is submitted that several complaints regarding the conduct
and functioning of respondent No.2 had been received from the Head of the
Department as well as other employees of the hospital, pursuant to which the
petitioner, being the competent administrative authority, initiated appropriate
proceedings.
6. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the
attention of this Court to the following sequence of events:

(i) On 13.10.2025, Dr. Shivam Yadav, Head of the Nephrology
Department, submitted a complaint regarding the conduct and
functioning of respondent No.2, pursuant to which administrative
instructions were issued for taking appropriate action.
(ii) On 27.10.2025, the Matron of Super Speciality Hospital issued
an order directing respondent No.2 to report to the Pediatric
Surgery Ward.
(iii) On 28.10.2025, the Head of the Nephrology Department again
submitted a complaint regarding alleged misconduct, use of
abusive language and obstruction in the discharge of official duties
and treatment of patients by respondent No.2.
(iv) On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the petitioner, in his
capacity as Superintendent of the hospital, issued a show-cause
notice to respondent No.2 on 28.10.2025.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the
record also reflects that prior complaints regarding the conduct of respondent
No.2 had been made by other employees, including Swati Chauhan, Divya
Chauhan and Anjali Das, on 04.12.2024 and 27.12.2024. Respondent No.2
had also submitted her explanation and counter-complaint on 20.02.2025,
whereafter explanations were sought from the concerned employees and a
report was submitted by the petitioner to the Dean, G.R. Medical College,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/3/2026
3:42:28 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33354
5 MCRC-50160-2025
Gwalior. Thus, according to the petitioner, the impugned FIR is not an

isolated incident but is the outcome of continuing departmental discord and
administrative proceedings initiated against respondent No.2.
8. It is lastly contended that the present case falls within the parameters
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal,
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly where the allegations, even if accepted
in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute an offence against the accused
concerned and where the criminal proceedings appear to be manifestly
attended with mala fide. It is therefore prayed that the impugned FIR and all
consequential proceedings, so far as they relate to the present petitioner, be
quashed.
9. None appeared on behalf of the respondent
No.2/complainant/prosecutrix, though served and earlier represented through
her counsel Shri Lokendra Shrivastava. However, learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 has filed his return/reply which is annexed with the petition.
Hence, this court has gone through the reply filed by the prosecutrix and also
considered the same.
10. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/prosecutrix
through the reply filed (hereinafter deemed as the submissions of the learned
counsel for respondent No.2), has vehemently opposed the petition and
submitted that the petitioner has deliberately concealed his actual
involvement in the incident. It is contended that the petitioner had been
harassing respondent No.2 in various ways, calling her to meet him and
sending messages to her mobile phone with the intention of establishing
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/3/2026
3:42:28 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33354
6 MCRC-50160-2025
physical relations with her. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further

submits that the petitioner, in connivance with co-accused Dr. Shivam
Yadav, was exerting pressure upon the prosecutrix to submit to his alleged
demands. It is specifically contended that when respondent No.2 refused to
accept the alleged proposal, she was subjected to harassment and
departmental proceedings were initiated against her with mala fide intention.
It is further submitted that respondent No.2 has also made statements before
the concerned Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, narrating the alleged conduct of the petitioner and the co-
accused.
11. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also disputed the
authenticity and genuineness of the departmental documents filed by the
petitioner. It is submitted that the complaints dated 13.10.2025 and
28.10.2025 and the show-cause notice dated 28.10.2025 were not served
upon respondent No.2 before registration of the FIR and were allegedly
supplied to her only on 31.10.2025. It is therefore contended that the
aforesaid documents have been subsequently prepared and fabricated with a
view to creating a defence in favour of the petitioner and the co-accused.
12. It is further submitted that the FIR is not an encyclopedia and is not
required to contain every minute detail of the incident. The allegations made
in the FIR, read along with the subsequent statement of the prosecutrix and
other material collected during investigation, disclose cognizable offences.
The truthfulness of the allegations, genuineness of the departmental
documents and the defence sought to be raised by the petitioner are matters
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/3/2026
3:42:28 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33354
7 MCRC-50160-2025
of investigation and trial and cannot be examined in proceedings under

Section 528 of BNSS.
13. In support of her submissions, learned counsel for respondent No.2
has placed reliance upon the principles laid down in the case of Neeharika
Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401,
and Siddharth Mukesh Bhandari Vs. State of Gujarat 2022 INSC 788
(decided on 02.08.2022), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated
that the power of quashing an FIR is to be exercised sparingly and that
ordinarily the High Court should not interfere with an ongoing investigation.
On these grounds, dismissal of the petition has been prayed for.
14. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State has also
opposed the petition and submitted that the allegations disclose commission
of cognizable offences and the matter requires investigation.
15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
16. Before proceeding to examine the rival submissions, it would be
appropriate to reiterate that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of
BNSS is intended to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and to secure
the ends of justice. In R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 , the
Hon'ble Supreme Court delineated the circumstances in which criminal
proceedings may be quashed. Subsequently, in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan
Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon'ble Supreme Court illustratively
enumerated the categories of cases in which the extraordinary jurisdiction of
the High Court may be exercised, including where the allegations made in
the FIR, even if accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/3/2026
3:42:28 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33354
8 MCRC-50160-2025
offence against the accused or where the criminal proceedings are manifestly

attended with mala fide and instituted with an ulterior motive.
17. At the same time, this Court is conscious of the settled principle
that the power of quashing is to be exercised sparingly and with
circumspection. In Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State of
Maharashtra, (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has cautioned that
ordinarily the High Court should not thwart an investigation into cognizable
offences and should not undertake a meticulous examination of the
allegations or the reliability of the evidence at the initial stage. However, the
said judgment also recognises that the High Court retains jurisdiction to
quash an FIR where the parameters laid down in R.P. Kapur (supra) and
Bhajan Lal (supra) are satisfied.
18. Keeping the aforesaid principles in view, this Court has carefully
examined the allegations contained in the impugned FIR, the subsequent
reply filed by respondent No.2 and the documents placed on record by the
petitioner. The issue which arises for consideration is not whether the
allegations against co-accused Dr. Shivam Yadav disclose commission of an
offence, but whether the allegations and material available on record disclose
sufficient prima facie involvement of the present petitioner so as to justify
continuation of criminal proceedings against him.
19. The most significant aspect which emerges from the FIR is that the
alleged incident of 28.10.2025 took place in the chamber of co-accused Dr.
Shivam Yadav. The allegations relating to the use of abusive and caste-
related language, physical contact with respondent No.2, threatening her and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/3/2026
3:42:28 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33354
9 MCRC-50160-2025
making the alleged demand for physical relations have been attributed to Dr.

Shivam Yadav. The present petitioner is neither alleged to have been
physically present at the place of occurrence nor is any specific act of
physical contact, use of abusive language or direct sexual overture attributed
to him in the FIR.
20. No doubt, the complainant has alleged that co-accused Dr. Shivam
Yadav referred to the present petitioner while allegedly asking her to
maintain physical relations with him. However, such an allegation, by itself,
cannot automatically result in criminal liability of the present petitioner
without some specific material indicating his own participation, instigation,
agreement or intentional involvement in the alleged acts. Criminal liability
cannot be fastened merely on the basis of the designation held by a person or
on account of his name being referred to by another accused during an
alleged conversation.
21. This Court is conscious of the submission made in reply filed on
behalf of respondent No.2 that the FIR is not an encyclopedia and that the
complainant has subsequently disclosed additional facts regarding alleged
WhatsApp messages and other communications. The said contention, as a
proposition of law, cannot be disputed. However, the principle that an FIR
need not contain every detail does not dispense with the requirement of there
being some prima facie material connecting the accused with the alleged
criminal act. The subsequent allegations made in the reply have also been
considered by this Court. However, the assertions regarding alleged
messages and proposals, in the absence of their specific particulars and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/3/2026
3:42:28 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33354
10 MCRC-50160-2025
supporting material being demonstrated on record, do not presently furnish a

sufficiently discernible basis to attribute the offences alleged in the FIR to
the petitioner.
22. Another important aspect which cannot be lost sight of is the
sequence of departmental events preceding the registration of the impugned
FIR. The record placed by the petitioner indicates that complaints regarding
the conduct and functioning of respondent No.2 were received prior to the
alleged incident. The communication dated 13.10.2025, the subsequent
administrative order dated 27.10.2025 and the complaint dated 28.10.2025
are relevant surrounding circumstances. It is further the petitioner's case that,
acting upon the complaint received from the Head of the Department, a
show-cause notice was issued to respondent No.2 on 28.10.2025.
23. Thus, the departmental discord between the parties and the
initiation of administrative proceedings against respondent No.2 are not
circumstances which have emerged only after registration of the FIR. The
documents placed on record indicate that such differences and complaints
existed prior to the registration of the criminal case. Although respondent
No.2 has disputed the genuineness and timing of service of these documents,
the existence of such prior departmental proceedings, when considered along
with the nature of allegations attributed to the present petitioner, assumes
significance in determining whether continuation of criminal proceedings
against him would serve the ends of justice.
24. This Court is also mindful of the objection raised by respondent
No.2 that the departmental documents have been fabricated and that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/3/2026
3:42:28 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33354
11 MCRC-50160-2025
show-cause notice was supplied to her only after registration of the FIR.

However, the question of whether the said documents were served on a
particular date or whether any departmental record was subsequently
manipulated cannot be treated as the sole determining factor in the present
proceedings. The Court is examining the cumulative effect of the material
placed on record, particularly the absence of any specific overt act attributed
to the present petitioner in the FIR and the existence of prior administrative
proceedings.
25. It is also relevant to distinguish the case of the present petitioner
from that of co-accused Dr. Shivam Yadav. In the case of Dr. Shivam
Yadav, the allegations of abusive language, caste-based insult, physical
contact and the alleged demand for physical relations were directly attributed
to him, as he was the person allegedly present in the chamber at the time of
occurrence. In the present case, however, the petitioner is sought to be
prosecuted principally on the basis of the alleged statement made by the co-
accused referring to him. Thus, the nature and extent of allegations against
the two accused persons are materially different.
26. This Court has also taken note of the fact that the petitioner's
involvement is sought to be inferred from his administrative position and the
departmental proceedings initiated against respondent No.2. However, the
mere fact that the petitioner was holding the post of Superintendent and was
exercising administrative control over the hospital cannot, in the absence of
specific material demonstrating his criminal intent or participation, be treated
as sufficient to attract criminal liability. The exercise of administrative
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/3/2026
3:42:28 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33354
12 MCRC-50160-2025
authority and the initiation of departmental proceedings, even if disputed by

the concerned employee, cannot by themselves be converted into a criminal
offence unless the necessary ingredients of the alleged offences are prima
facie disclosed.
27. So far as the offences punishable under Sections 74 and 75 of BNS
are concerned, the FIR does not attribute to the present petitioner any direct
act of assault, use of criminal force, unwelcome physical contact, demand for
sexual favour or sexually coloured remark. Similarly, the allegations
constituting criminal intimidation under Section 351(3) of BNS are
specifically attributed to the co-accused. The mere alleged reference to the
petitioner by the co-accused, without any further material demonstrating his
participation or intentional involvement, would not be sufficient to sustain
the prosecution against him for the aforesaid offences.
28. Likewise, so far as the offences under Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)
(ii) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act are concerned, the FIR does not disclose
any specific act of sexual contact, sexually coloured conduct or other
prohibited act committed by the present petitioner against respondent No.2.
The necessary ingredients of the aforesaid provisions cannot be presumed
merely because the petitioner is alleged to have been referred to in the
conversation attributed to the co-accused.
29. This Court is not oblivious to the fact that allegations concerning
sexual harassment and offences against members of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes require due seriousness and sensitivity. However, the
seriousness of the allegations cannot dispense with the requirement that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/3/2026
3:42:28 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33354
13 MCRC-50160-2025
material must disclose the essential ingredients of the offences against each

accused individually. The criminal process cannot be permitted to continue
against a person merely on the basis of an indirect reference, particularly
when the allegations in the FIR do not attribute any specific criminal act to
him.
30. The contention of respondent No.2 that her subsequent statement
before the Magistrate and alleged electronic communications would establish
the petitioner's involvement has also been considered. However, on the
material presently placed before this Court, no specific communication or
electronic material demonstrating the petitioner's participation in the alleged
incident has been brought to the notice of this Court in a manner which
would prima facie connect him with the offences registered in the impugned
FIR. A general assertion of the existence of such material, without the
relevant particulars being demonstrated, cannot by itself be a sufficient
ground to sustain the prosecution against the petitioner.
31. This Court is conscious that the disputed questions of fact
ordinarily ought not to be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of
BNSS. Nevertheless, the present case does not require this Court to conduct
a mini trial or to determine the truthfulness of the allegations on the basis of
a detailed appreciation of evidence. The consideration is confined to the
allegations in the FIR, the nature of the alleged participation of the petitioner
and the attending circumstances available on record.
32. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid circumstances persuades
this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction in the present case. The
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/3/2026
3:42:28 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33354
14 MCRC-50160-2025
relevant considerations are:


(i) The alleged incident dated 28.10.2025 is stated to have
occurred in the chamber of co-accused Dr. Shivam Yadav, and the
petitioner is not alleged to have been physically present at the
place of occurrence.
(ii) The allegations of abusive language, caste-based insult,
physical contact, criminal intimidation and the alleged demand for
physical relations have been specifically attributed to the co-
accused.
(iii) The FIR does not disclose any specific overt act committed by
the present petitioner constituting the offences alleged against him.
(iv) The alleged reference to the present petitioner by the co-
accused, in the absence of specific material demonstrating prior
agreement, instigation or intentional participation, cannot by itself
be treated as sufficient to fasten criminal liability upon him.
(v) The material placed on record indicates the existence of prior
departmental complaints and administrative proceedings
concerning respondent No.2, which constitute relevant
surrounding circumstances while examining the petitioner's plea of
mala fide implication.
(vi) The subsequent allegations regarding alleged messages and
communications, as presented before this Court, do not contain
sufficiently demonstrated particulars or supporting material
connecting the petitioner with the alleged offences.
(vii) The allegations against the petitioner, when considered in
their entirety along with the attending circumstances, do not
disclose the essential ingredients of the offences for which the
impugned FIR has been registered against him.

33. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that, insofar as the
present petitioner is concerned, the continuation of criminal proceedings on
the basis of the allegations and material presently available would amount to
an abuse of the process of law. The case of the present petitioner is therefore
distinguishable from that of the co-accused, not because of any lesser
seriousness attached to the allegations, but because of the absence of specific
allegations and material disclosing his individual participation in the alleged
offences.
34. Accordingly, this Court finds that the present case falls within the
parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/3/2026
3:42:28 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33354
15 MCRC-50160-2025
Lal (supra), warranting interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under

Section 528 of BNSS.
35. Consequently, the present petition is hereby allowed. FIR
registered at Crime No.356/2025 at Police Station Kampoo, District Gwalior,
for the offences punishable under Sections 74, 75 and 351(3) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)
(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989, along with all consequential criminal proceedings arising
therefrom, so far as they relate to the present petitioner Dr. Girija Shankar
Gupta, stand quashed.
36. It is made clear that the present order is confined exclusively to the
petitioner Dr. Girija Shankar Gupta. The same shall not affect the
proceedings or investigation, if any, in respect of any other accused person,
except to the extent already governed by the separate order passed by this
Court in the petition preferred by co-accused Dr. Shivam Yadav.
No order as to costs.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
Vishal

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/3/2026
3:42:28 PM