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

th

ON THE 5 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 35736 of 2024 KARTIK PATEL Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri K. K. Pandey - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Aatmaram Ben - Government Advocate for respondent/State.

ORDER The present petition is being filed by the applicant under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, invoking the inherent powers of this Court, seeking quashing of FIR No. 2/2024 registered at Police Station Azak, District Narmadapuram, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 354(Gh) and 376(2)(N) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v), and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. According to the prosecution case, the prosecutrix lodged an FIR against the petitioner on 26.02.2024. It is alleged that in the year 2021, the prosecutrix developed an acquaintance with the petitioner and they started communicating with each other over the mobile phone. Over time, she began to trust the petitioner.On one occasion, the prosecutrix reached Itarsi Bus Stand with the intention of travelling to Indore; however, the bus had already departed. She informed the petitioner about the situation over the phone and called him to the bus stand. The petitioner arrived and took her to Sheetal Palace Hotel, Itarsi.

When the prosecutrix initially refused to stay in the same room, the petitioner professed his love for her and, on the false promise of marriage, established physical relations with her.

3. It is further alleged that thereafter, the petitioner repeatedly called the prosecutrix to the same hotel and had sexual relations with her on multiple occasions. The last such incident allegedly occurred on 16.11.2023, when the petitioner called her to the same hotel at around 6:00 p.m. and again established physical relations. Subsequently, the prosecutrix came to know that the petitioner’s real name was Kartik Patel and not Pawan, as he had earlier disclosed. She became frightened upon learning this fact but did not inform her family members. Subsequently, when the prosecutrix requested the petitioner to marry her, he refused. Thereafter, on 26.02.2024, she lodged the present FIR against the petitioner. It was later discovered that Pawan had become engaged to another woman, upon which the prosecutrix filed a further report.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that no offence is made out against the petitioner. He relied on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in case of Mahmood Ali and others vs State of UP and others, reported in

2023 SCC OnLine SC 950. Relevant para of said judgment is quoted as under :

"13. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In fri