Facts
The applicant, a government servant, sought the quashment of FIR No. 52/2024 registered at P.S. Belbag for offences under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC.
Source reference: para. 1The prosecutrix (Respondent No. 2) alleged that while representing the applicant as an advocate in a child custody dispute, the applicant established physical relations with her on a false promise of marriage on 15.11.2022, recorded obscene videos for intimidation, and administered intoxicants.
Source reference: paras. 2, 10, 13, 14The FIR was lodged on 06.02.2024, following a 15-month delay.
Source reference: para. 4During proceedings, the prosecutrix admitted she was not a practicing advocate, contradicting her written complaint and Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement.
Source reference: paras. 10, 11Issues
1. Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings against the applicant constitutes an abuse of the process of law warranting interference under Section 528 of the BNSS.
Source reference: para. 92. Whether the material contradictions regarding the prosecutrix’s professional status and the absence of corroborative medical/electronic evidence render the prosecution inherently improbable.
Source reference: paras. 11-16Law Applied
The Court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 [corresponding to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.], which grants the High Court inherent powers to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice.
Source reference: paras. 1, 9, 17The Court balanced this with the principle that while courts should not ordinarily conduct a "mini-trial" at this stage, they are duty-bound to intervene if the prosecution is inherently improbable or the foundational facts are demolished by the complainant’s own admissions.
Source reference: paras. 9, 16Reasoning
The Court observed that the prosecutrix’s admission—that she was not a practicing advocate—demolished the "genesis of her acquaintance" and the professional pretext under which she claimed to have visited Jabalpur.
Source reference: para. 11This was deemed a material improvement that rendered the foundational version doubtful.
Source reference: para. 11Furthermore, the Court noted the lack of corroboration: the medical report showed no signs of sexual assault, there was no forensic evidence of intoxicants, and no electronic record (obscene videos) was recovered despite investigation.
Source reference: paras. 12, 13, 14The Court concluded that the unexplained 15-month delay, coupled with these inconsistencies and the absence of scientific evidence, made the continuation of the trial a misuse of the criminal process.
Source reference: paras. 15, 16Holding
The Court answered in the affirmative, holding that the prosecution was inherently improbable and an abuse of process.
The Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 52/2024 and the consequential proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 202/2024. The applicant was discharged from the criminal proceedings.
Source reference: para. 18Original Court PDF
Abhishek YadavvsThe State Of Madhya Pradesh
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in