IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA

th

ON THE 6 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 13732 of 2025 LAKHAN LAL Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Vikesh Pratap Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Deepak Tiwari - Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.

Shri Harjeet Singh - Advocate for respondent No.2.

ORDER The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, invoking the inherent powers of this Court, seeking quashing of FIR dated 20.02.2025 registered at Police Station Ranjhi, District Jabalpur (M.P.), bearing Crime No.128/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 376(2)(n) of the IPC and all other consequential proceedings.

2. As per the prosecution case, the complainant/victim lodged a report on 20.02.2025 at Police Station Ranjhi, District Jabalpur, stating that the complainant and the petitioner were classmates at Government ITI in the year 2014. They developed a love relationship, and on 19.09.2015, for the first time, the applicant established physical relations with the complainant on the false pretext of marriage at the house of his relative. Thereafter, physical relations were established on several occasions. It is further alleged that in June 2024, the petitioner took the complainant to Narmada Hotel, Gwarighat Road, and again established physical relations with her. On that basis police registered FIR against the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Central Government employee working in the Railways as a Factory Assistant. The petitioner never gave any allurement to the complainant to marry her. The complaint lodged by the complainant is false and fabricated. Moreover, there is an almost 10-year delay in lodging the FIR, and no plausible explanation has been given for such delay.

4. It is further submitted that the petitioner and the complainant were friends. The petitioner never gave assurance of marriage to the complainant. However, when the petitioner joined the central government service, then the complainant made pressure to perform marriage with her otherwise, she will implicate the petitioner in false and frivolous cases.

5. Furthermore, it is submitted that, as per the FIR, the first alleged incident occurred on 19.09.2015, while the last alleged incident is stated to have taken place in June 2024. The FIR, however, was lodged only in February 2025, after a delay of approximately eight months from the last incident. No plausible or satisfactory explanation has been given for this delay in lodging the FIR. It is also submitted that, on a plain reading of the FIR, no offence is made out. The allegations pertain entirely to matters of consent and, therefore, the FIR is liable to be quashed.

6 . Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that there are direct allegations against the petitioner, therefore, the FIR and pending proceedings may not be quashed.

7. Counsel for the respondent No.2. submits that the petitioner committed the aforementioned offences on the basis of false promise of marriage. If a woman engaged herself in sexual relation on false promise, her consent would be treated to be a consent given under misconception of fact and such a consent would amount to rape. Therefore, present petition deserves to be dismissed as there are directed allegations against the petitioner.

8. Heard rival submissions and perused the record.

9. The FIR registered against the present petitioner reveals that at the time of the first alleged incident, both the parties were friends and had subsequently fallen in love. It is submitted that on 19.09.2015, the petitioner took the complainant to his relative’s vacant house at Ranjhi, where he disclosed to her that he loved her and intended to marry her. Thereafter, it is alleged that physical relations took place between the petitioner and the