IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA

th

ON THE 30 OF OCTOBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 38073 of 2025 PANKAJ PARIHAR @ PANKAJ SINGH PARIHAR Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Anil Khare - Senior Advocate with Shri Priyank Agrawal -

Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Abhishek Singh - Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1 and

2/State.

ORDER The present petition has been filed challenging the FIR dated

18.05.2025 registered as Crime No. 0119 of 2025 at Police Station Kundam District Jabalpur (M.P.) for the offences under Sections 64(1), 296, 115 and

351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. The facts of the case, in substance, are that in terms of Annexure P/1, the said FIR has been lodged by complainant-victim against the petitioner alleging that on the pretext to provide employment, the petitioner committed rape on her forcibly in the car and further threatened her to kill in case she raised alarm. Accordingly, the aforesaid case has been registered against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD present case at the behest of the victim and other interested persons.

3. It is argued by the petitioner's counsel that the victim who is respondent No.3 herein, is a consenting party to the offence. He has filed transcripts of the conversations which have been recorded between the petitioner and the victim to demonstrate the same. Along with I.A. No. 19657 of 2025 for taking documents on record, entire charge sheet has been filed. It is his case that even from perusal of victim's statement recorded during the investigation, it is a clear case of consent. The victim went to Amarkantak with the present petitioner. She roamed here and there for the whole day and while returning back to Jabalpur, she stated that the offence is committed by the present petitioner.

4. It is further argued that on the earlier occasion, an FIR dated 28.09.2024 has been registered by the wife of the petitioner at Crime No. 0570 of 2024 for the offence under Sections 64(1) and 351(2) at Police Station Barela District Jabalpur (M.P.) in terms of Annexure P/4. It is submitted that the present FIR has been registered as a counter blast to the earlier case registered by the petitioner's wife against Mohit Sahu and Deepak Patel wherein they have planted the petitioner for entering into a compromise & despite their best efforts and threatening being given to the petitioner and his wife to enter into a compromise with respect to Crime No.

0570 of 2024, the present offence has been registered against the petitioner.

5. From the perusal of the entire story which has been developed by the victim in the present case, no offence is made out. She is a married woman aged about 35 years and is clearly a consenting party as reflected from the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD transcripts which have been recorded. It is also submitted that till date the charges have not been framed by the learned trial Court. Therefore, the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable seeking quashment of FIR and further proceedings. The petitioner's counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and submitted that the case of the petitioner clearly falls under the categories as laid down in the said judgment. Under these circumstances, he has prayed for quashment of the FIR and further proceedings.

6. Counsel appearing for the respondents-State has strongly opposed the petitioner's contentions. He is in possession of the case diary. He has submitted that the victim has categorically stated against by the petitioner regarding commission of offence in the complaint made by her and thereafter the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 o