IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI

th

ON THE 12 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 1132 of 2026 NILESH KUMAR YADAV AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Ms. Smita Varma - Advocate for the petitioner.

Smt. Pushpanjaly Dwivedi - PL for the respondent/State.

Shri Rupanshu Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent/objector.

ORDER The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 528 of BNSS seeking quashment of FIR dated 20.04.2025, registered at Police Station Hanumana District Mauganj (M.P.) vide Crime No.142/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and also all proceedings pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hanumana District Rewa (M.P.) vide RCT No.465/2025 (State of M.P. Vs. Ramayan Prasad Yadav & Others).

2. As per the prosecution case, on 20.04.2025 at about 7:00 PM, the prosecutrix aged about 22 years lodged a written complaint at Police Station Hanumana, District Mauganj. She stated that she is a student of M.A. Second Year and that the applicant was studying in the same college. It was alleged that about four years ago, the applicant established physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage. Upon disclosure to their families, who belong to the same caste and are related to each other, both sides agreed to solemnize the marriage, and 20.04.2025 was fixed as the date of marriage. It is further alleged that prior to the marriage, the applicant demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- and a motorcycle, due to which the marriage could not be performed. On the basis of the said complaint, the police registered an FIR against the applicant and other co-accused persons on the same day. Thereafter, without proper inquiry, the police filed a charge-sheet before the Committal Court in RCT No. 465/2025 (State of M.P. vs. Ramayan Prasad Yadav & Ors.). Aggrieved by the registration of the FIR and filing of the charge-sheet, the petitioners have filed the present petition seeking quashing of the FIR and entire criminal proceedings.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Police Station Hanumana, District Mauganj, registered the FIR against the Petitioners without conducting any proper preliminary inquiry. Prior to registration of the FIR, Petitioner No. 1 had submitted written complaints dated 27.03.2025 and 14.04.2025 regarding assault and threats by unknown persons in connection with the proposed marriage, which were duly acknowledged by the same police station. Due to such threats, the Petitioners requested postponement of the marriage. Thereafter, the prosecutrix lodged a false complaint against them. He further submits that the allegation of sexual relationship is false and baseless. The Petitioner and prosecutrix developed acquaintance only in the year 2023 during their college studies; therefore, the allegation of a sexual act four years prior is factually incorrect. The prosecutrix is a major, aged about 22 years, pursuing higher education, and fully capable of understanding the consequences of her actions.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is an unexplained delay of about four years in lodging the FIR, and no independent witness or material evidence has been collected during investigation to corroborate the allegations. No specific place of alleged incident has been identified and no site map has been prepared by the Investigating Officer. Petitioner No. 1 submitted a representation to the Superintendent of Police seeking fair inquiry; however, no proper action was taken. This Hon’ble Court has already granted anticipatory bail to the Petitioners, and they have no prior criminal antecedents. It is further argued that no prima facie case is made out under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law. The Petitioners are innocent and h