IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

th

ON THE 13 OF OCTOBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 26099 of 2024 ASHISH GAUTAM Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Brajesh Kumar Tyagi - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Samar Ghuraiya - Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1/State.

ORDER Notices to the respondent No.2 by RAD mode were sent. However, the service report has not been returned back. Thus, in the light of Chapter XV, Rule 11(2), of the High Court Rules, Respondent no. 2 is treated to be deemed served.

2. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner for quashment of FIR bearing crime No.224/2024 registered at Police Station Hajira District Gwalior for offence punishable under Sections

376(2)(N), 506, 323 of IPC.

3. As per the prosecution case, the present FIR has been registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the prosecutrix/respondent No. 2. It is alleged in the complaint that the marriage of the prosecutrix was solemnized with one Vikki Mourya in the year 2020. Subsequently, the petitioner came into contact with the prosecutrix at a garments shop situated at Hajira, and they started communicating with each other. At that time, a domestic dispute was ongoing between the prosecutrix and her husband. It is further alleged that the petitioner advised the prosecutrix to obtain a divorce and assured her that he would marry her thereafter. Thereafter, the petitioner frequently visited the house of the prosecutrix and allegedly established physical relations with her on the false pretext of marriage and also subjected her to physical assault. Subsequently, on 08.04.2024, the prosecutrix obtained a decree of divorce, but thereafter, the petitioner refused to marry her.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the perusal of the prosecution version itself, it is evident that the prosecutrix is a major and married lady aged about 24 years. It is further revealed from her own statement that she was in a consensual relationship with the petitioner for the last two years. The physical relationship between the parties was established voluntarily and with her free consent. The said consent was neither obtained by misrepresentation nor on the basis of any misconception of facts. When the prosecutrix herself is a major married woman, the allegation that the petitioner established physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage is inherently absurd and untenable. The prosecutrix was fully conscious and aware of the nature and consequences of the relationship. Thus, prima facie, even from the version of the prosecution, no offence under Sections 376(2)

(n), 506, and 323 of the IPC is made out against the petitioner.

5. It is further submitted that as per the FIR, the prosecutrix was in a relationship with the petitioner for the last two years. No specific date, time, or incident has been mentioned in the FIR to constitute the alleged offence of rape. The prosecutrix continued to maintain an intimate relationship with the petitioner over a long period, which clearly reflects that the relationship was consensual and based on mutual affection.

6. It is further submitted that the allegations levelled by the prosecutrix in the FIR are false, concocted, and motivated. The alleged threats by the petitioner are also unsubstantiated by any legal evidence. Hence, the entire FIR stands vitiated and does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence.

7. It is further submitted that prior to the lodging of the present FIR, the prosecutrix had already registered another FIR against the petitioner and his family members for the offences under Sections 294, 323, 506, and 34 IPC in Crime No. 688/2023 at Police Station Thatipur, District Gwalior. This clearly indicates mala fide intention on the part of the prosecutrix.

8. It is further submitted that the relationship between the prosecutrix and the peti