The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) registered against a designated Senior Advocate for offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. Justice Vishal Mishra, terming the case a “monstrous” and “malicious prosecution,” held that allowing the proceedings to continue would be a clear abuse of the process of law.
The Court further directed the Superintendent of Police, Rewa, to initiate legal action against the female complainant for lodging a series of “false and frivolous complaints” with the intent to blackmail and harass individuals, including the petitioner.
Case Background
The writ petition was filed by a Senior Advocate seeking the quashing of FIR No. 255 of 2025, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Rewa. The FIR alleged offences under Section 65(2) of the BNS, 2023, and Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act.
The matter originated when the complainant engaged the petitioner’s services for a criminal revision. According to the petitioner’s counsel, upon reviewing the case records, the advocate discovered that the complainant had a history of making similar false allegations against other individuals. Consequently, he decided to withdraw from the case and provided a No-Objection Certificate (NOC) on September 27, 2024.
This professional withdrawal allegedly triggered a series of retaliatory complaints. The complainant first sent a legal notice on October 21, 2024, demanding a return of fees, with no mention of sexual misconduct. Subsequently, on November 30, 2024, she filed a complaint alleging that the petitioner had outraged her modesty. Later, she filed another complaint accusing the advocate of raping her two-year-old daughter in the High Court premises on December 20, 2024. This allegation was thoroughly investigated by the police, who found it to be false after examining CCTV footage and confirming the petitioner’s alibi—he was in New Delhi on the specified date. The police closed this enquiry.
The present FIR, registered on June 11, 2025, alleged that the petitioner entered the complainant’s house during the intervening night of June 7 and 8, 2025, and raped her daughter.
Arguments Before the Court
The petitioner’s counsel, led by Senior Advocates Shri Anil Khare and Shri Naman Nagrath, argued that the FIR was a malicious attempt to blackmail and pressure their client. They submitted that the police had initially closed the complaint by making an entry in the Rojnamcha Sanha (daily diary), noting the complainant’s history of making false accusations. However, just hours later, they registered an FIR. The petitioner provided CCTV footage from his residence showing no movement during the time of the alleged incident.
The State counsel, Shri A. S. Baghel, conceded that a thorough investigation had been conducted and a closure report had been filed before the competent court. The government advocate stated that the investigation, which included analysis of medical reports, witness statements, and electronic evidence, found no substance in the allegations made against the petitioner.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
Justice Vishal Mishra conducted a detailed review of the case history, observing a clear pattern of false complaints. The judgment noted that previous complaints filed by the woman, including one where her own elder daughter did not support the allegations, were dismissed by the courts, with one court explicitly holding that the “case is fabricated.”
The Court found it “surprising” that the police registered an FIR shortly after making a Rojnamcha entry that concluded the complaint lacked merit and that the “complainant is in the habit of making false accusation against people.”
The investigation into the present FIR revealed several inconsistencies:
- The husband of the complainant stated that nobody had entered his house on the night of the alleged incident.
- The doctor at a private clinic, whom the complainant first visited, contradicted her statement, clarifying that he had simply advised her to go to a government hospital as he was not a child specialist.
- Statements from the landlord and other tenants confirmed that the complainant was “habitual of making a false complaint.”
- The MLC report and the forensic (DNA) report did not support the allegation of rape.
Citing the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal, the Court reiterated that the power to quash an FIR should be exercised in the rarest of rare cases, especially where proceedings are “manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance.”
The Court observed, “Permitting to continue such proceedings against the petitioner is falling under the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and will amount to clear abuse of process of law.”
Quoting the Supreme Court’s decision in Haji Iqbal @ Bala vs. State of U.P., Justice Mishra noted that while rape is a heinous crime, “a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to the accused as well.”
Final Decision and Directions
Finding the prosecution to be malicious and an abuse of legal process, the High Court quashed FIR No. 255 of 2025 and all related proceedings.
Before parting with the case, the Court invoked its authority to address the complainant’s conduct. Referencing Section 22 of the POCSO Act and Sections 240 and 248 of the BNS, 2023—provisions that penalize the filing of false complaints and information with intent to injure—the Court issued stern directions.
“The complainant is in a habit of making false complaint which amounts to sheer abuse of process of law and amounts to malicious prosecution,” the order stated. “This not amounts to humiliation, causing harassment physically and mentally and tarnishing the image and reputation of the person made accused, in the entire society, which snatches away the right to live with dignity.”
The Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Rewa, to “take immediate action against the complainant” under the relevant legal provisions. It also ordered that in the future, if any complaint is made by the same individual, a preliminary enquiry must be conducted before any coercive action is taken.
The writ petition was allowed and disposed of.
