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

th

ON THE 16 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 19761 of 2023 MOHAMMAD SAJID KHAN Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Shubham Manchani - Advocate for the applicant.

Ms. Priyanka Mishra - Government Advocate for the State.

Shri Jai Shukla - Advocate for respondent No.2.

ORDER The present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashment of FIR registered at Crime No.245/2023 in Police Station Kotwali Shahdol, District Shahdol and subsequent charge sheet arising out of the said FIR, wherein the charges have been leveled against the applicant under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 323, 506 and 377 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The facts of the case in short are that an FIR in Crime No.245/2023 was registered at Polilce Station Kotwali, Shahdol (M.P.) against the applicant, wherein he has been charged for the offences under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 323, 506 & 377 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that since the year 2019, the complainant started mingling with the applicant, who is stated to be the brother-in-law of the prosecutrix. It is also alleged by the complainant that she was assured by the applicant that he will get marry her stating that in his community, there is a tradition of having three-four wives.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a false case has been registered against the applicant to take vengeance. The FIR and charge sheet is a complete misuse of law against the applicant. She simply wants to cut short the method of the civil suit and take over the entire ancestral property of her sisters and her brother by means of black mail. As per MLC report dated 17.03.2023, no external or internal injury was found on the body of the prosecutrix. Moreover, Medical Officer did not find any tenderness during the examination and gave an opinion that there is no sign of recent sexual activity.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the prosecutrix has categorically stated in the FIR while she was residing in the Shahdol (M.P.) after lockdown at the same time, the petitioner used to come and develop sexual relation with her on the pretext that there is a tradition of having three -four wives. He will get her married with the promise that she will also get her share in the ancestral property, after which on several occasion, he assured that he will marry the prosecutrix and developed physical relation with her. It is also submitted that the High Court in exercise of power under section 482 of Code Of Criminal Procedure has a limited scope of interference and cannot conduct a mini trial. In the present case, no ground of quashing of FIR is made out, the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. As per prosecution case, the date of incident was on 27.03.2020, whereas FIR was lodged on 17.03.2023 and age of prosecutrix was 37 years at the time of incident and she gave statement that she was in physical relationship with him since 2020 till 2023.. During this period, the prosecutrix had never intimated to anybody, which shows that she was a consenting party. The applicant is brother-in-law (Jija) of the prosecutrix and as per the version of statements recorded under Sections 161 & 164 of the Cr.P.C., she specifically stated that the applicant made physical relationship with her since more than three years. As per MLC report of the prosecutrix, no external or internal injury was found on the body of the prosecutrix. Looking to the factual matrix of the case, this case is squarely covered with the judgment of the Apex Court passed in case of Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. State of Maharashstra and Ors, (2019) 18 SCC 191, wherein the Apex Court has held as under:-

"There was a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex. Court, in such cases, must very carefully examine whether the compl