ABHISHEK YADAV vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 36840

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Himanshu Joshi, J
ABHISHEK YADAV – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS – Respondent
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 7186 of 2025

Important Points

Inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS may be exercised to quash proceedings when the prosecution version is inherently improbable, lacks corroborative medical, forensic, and electronic evidence, and is contradicted by the complainant's own admissions, as continuing such trial would be an abuse of the process of law.

Subject

Criminal Law - Quashment of FIR

Act Referred

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: S.528, S.250
Indian Penal Code: S.376, S.506
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam: S.61, S.63
Evidence Act: S.94

Headnote

The applicant sought quashment of FIR No. 52/2024 registered under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequent proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The applicant contended that the complainant, who claimed to be a practicing advocate, had falsely implicated him after he refused her marriage proposal, highlighting a fifteen-month delay in filing the FIR and contradictions in her statements. The court found that the complainant's admission during the hearing that she was not a practicing advocate contradicted the foundational version of the prosecution provided in the FIR and Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement. The primary issue was whether the continuation of the criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of the process of law. The court reasoned that the material contradiction regarding the complainant's professional status, combined with the absence of medical corroboration for forcible intercourse, lack of forensic evidence regarding intoxicants, and the non-recovery of alleged obscene videos, rendered the prosecution story inherently improbable and the foundational facts demolished. The petition stands allowed.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Bhagwan Singh Thakur
For the Respondents: Vijay Kumar Shukla

Table of Content
1. background of the fir and the applicant's defense regarding the complainant's identity and motives. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. contention regarding delay, material contradictions, and the prima facie case for sexual assault. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. material contradiction in the complainant's professional status undermines the prosecution's foundational version. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. lack of medical, forensic, and electronic evidence fails to corroborate the allegations of assault and intimidation. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
5. cumulative effect of contradictions and lack of evidence justifies quashing to prevent abuse of process. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
6. quashment of fir and discharge of the applicant from criminal proceedings. (Para 18)

##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:42117

1 MCRC-7186-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI

ON THE 16 OF JUNE, 2026

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 7186 of 2025

ABHISHEK YADAV

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Bhagwan Singh Thakur - Advocate for applicant.

Shri Vijay Kumar Shukla - Panel Lawyer for the State.

The complainant/respondent No.2 is present in person.

ORDER

This petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,

2023 has been preferred by the applicant seeking exercise of the inherent

jurisdiction of this Court for quashment of FIR No.52/2024 dated 06.02.2024

registered at Police Station Belbag, District Jabalpur for offences punishable under

Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and the consequential proceedings

of Sessions Trial No.202/2024 pending before the Court of VIIIth Additional

Sessions Judge, Jabalpur.

2. As per the case set up in the petition, the applicant is a Government servant

having no criminal antecedents and is maintaining his aged mother, divorced sister

and minor niece. It is averred that during the pendency of matrimonial proceedings

between the applicant and his wife at Kota, Rajasthan, he came in contact with

respondent No.2, who represented herself to be a practising advocate. According

to the applicant, respondent No.2 initially offered professional assistance in

connection with his matrimonial dispute and gradually developed personal

relations with him. It is alleged that respondent No.2 visited Jabalpur on

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE

Signing time: 30-06-2026

12:29:25

##PAGE2##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:42117

2 MCRC-7186-2025

15.11.2022 along with one Lokendra, introduced as her brother, and during the

said visit several photographs were taken at various tourist places including

Bhedaghat and Bargi Dam. The applicant has relied upon photographs filed as

Annexure A/1.

3. It is further alleged that respondent No.2 thereafter insisted upon marriage

with the applicant despite being aware that his matrimonial dispute was still

pending. According to the applicant, upon his refusal, respondent No.2 started

extending threats and ultimately lodged a false complaint. Reliance has been

placed upon representations submitted by the applicant and his family members to

various authorities, including representations dated 07.12.2022, 27.02.2023 and

16.05.2023 filed as Annexures A/2, A/3 and A/4 respectively. The applicant

contends that respondent No.2 had earlier also implicated other persons in criminal

cases and that the present prosecution is an abuse of the process of law.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the alleged incident is stated

to have occurred on 16.11.2022 whereas the complaint was lodged only on

06.02.2024 after an unexplained delay of nearly fifteen months. It is contended

that the delay itself creates serious doubt about the prosecution story. It is further

argued that there are material contradictions between the written complaint

(Annexure A/5), the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the supplementary

statement and the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It has also been

submitted that the call detail records, forensic report and medical e