##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4796

1 MCRC-45899-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

th

ON THE 5 OF FEBRUARY, 2026

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 45899 of 2025

CHANDRA PRATAP SHAKYA

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Sameer Kumar Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms Anjali Gyanani - GA for the respondent No.1/State.

Shri Ram Kishor Sharma - Advocate for the respondent No.2.

ORDER

This is the first petition filed by the applicant under Section 528 of the

Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashment of FIR bearing

Crime No.242/2025 registered at Police Station Dehat, District Bhind (M.P.)

for the offence punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

along with all consequential proceedings.

2. As per the prosecution case, the prosecutrix, aged about 25 years,

lodged a typed complaint on 25.04.2025 at Police Station Dehat, District

Bhind, alleging that she was acquainted with the applicant and about one

year prior to the incident, the family members of the prosecutrix had sent a

marriage proposal to the applicant, after which the applicant started visiting

her house and remained in regular contact with her on the mobile phone.

During this period, the applicant allegedly established physical relations with

the prosecutrix by assuring her that he would marry her. Subsequently, the

applicant allegedly stopped responding to her calls and refused to marry her,

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: NEETU

SHASHANK

Signing time: 2/16/2026

1:35:03 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4796

2 MCRC-45899-2025

which led to the lodging of the FIR. During investigation, the statements of

the prosecutrix were recorded under the relevant provisions of BNSS, and

after completing the investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the

competent court on 24.06.2025.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FIR is false,

fabricated, and maliciously instituted. It was argued that no ingredients of

Section 69 of B.N.S. are made out from a bare reading of the FIR. It was

contended that the applicant never made any false promise of marriage and,

in fact, it was the family members of the prosecutrix who had approached the

applicant with a marriage proposal. It was further submitted that the

engagement between the parties had already taken place on 29.01.2025,

which clearly negates any intention of deceit from the very beginning. It was

also argued that due to disputes regarding the date of marriage and other

issues, misunderstandings arose between the parties, following which the

prosecutrix lodged the FIR with malafide intention to pressurize the

applicant. Learned counsel further submitted that prior to lodging of the FIR,

the applicant had already filed a private complaint against the prosecutrix

and her family members, and the present FIR is a counterblast to the same.

Reliance was placed on the order of this Court passed in the matter of

Virendra Verma vs. state of M.P. & ors. passed in M.Cr.C. No.9408/2025 on

06.05.2025 and on the judgments of supreme court passed in the matter of

Mahesh Damu Khare vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. reported in (2024)11

SCC 398, in the matter of Biswajyoti Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal

and Another reported in (2025)5 SCC 749 and in the matter of Jaspal Singh

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: NEETU

SHASHANK

Signing time: 2/16/2026

1:35:03 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4796

3 MCRC-45899-2025

Kaural vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Another reported in (2025)5 SCC

756 in support of the contention that continuation of criminal proceedings

would amount to abuse of the process of law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the petition and

submitted that the FIR and charge sheet clearly disclose the commission of

an offence under Section 69 of B.N.S. It was argued that the allegations

specifically state that the applicant established physical relations with the

prosecutrix on the false assurance of marriag