##PAGE1## ##PAGE2##

2. The petitioner, a practising Advocate at Rewa, had represented respondent No.4 in matrimonial proceedings against her husband. According to the petitioner, after he withdrew from the matter and issued an NOC, respondent No.4, being aggrieved, started making complaints against him. He relies upon earlier complaints, police reports and proceedings concerning respondent No.4 to contend that she has a history of making false complaints against different persons. He further relies upon the Action Taken Report and minutes of the proceedings before the National Commission for Scheduled Castes dated 13.05.2025, asserting that the allegations against him were earlier found unsubstantiated.

3. On 14.05.2025, respondent No.4 lodged a complaint at Police Station Chorhata alleging that the petitioner, after pressurising her to compromise her matrimonial dispute, made obscene calls and subsequently subjected her to repeated sexual assault on 26.12.2024, 04.01.2025 and 15.02.2025. She further alleged that after discovering her pregnancy on 11.02.2025, the petitioner asked her to take medicines for terminating the pregnancy. On the basis of the complaint, Crime No.258/2025 was registered for offences under the BNS and the SC/ST Act. The petitioner has challenged the FIR under Article 226 of the Constitution, alleging malicious prosecution, abuse of process and collusion between respondent No.4 and the police authorities.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR is a retaliatory proceeding instituted after the petitioner refused to continue as counsel for respondent No.4. It is argued that the earlier complaints made by respondent No.4 had been found unsubstantiated and, therefore, registration of the impugned FIR, immediately after the proceedings before the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, demonstrates mala fide exercise of power. Learned counsel submits that the Action Taken Report and the minutes of the Commission's proceedings, relied upon as Annexure P/17, demonstrate absence of material against the petitioner. It is further argued that respondent No.4 has lodged several complaints against different persons and has allegedly obtained monetary compensation by invoking the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The petitioner relies upon Annexure P/20 in support of the said submission. It is contended that the petitioner is an Advocate of long standing and that the prosecution has caused serious prejudice to his reputation and professional standing.

5. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 submits that the petition proceeds upon disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction. It is submitted that the FIR contains specific allegations of repeated sexual assault, including allegations concerning the dates 26.12.2024, 04.01.2025 and 15.02.2025, and allegations concerning pregnancy and the alleged demand to terminate the pregnancy. It is submitted that the allegations, taken at their face value, clearly disclose cognizable offences and, therefore, the investigation cannot be interdicted at its inception. Learned counsel further submits that the statement of the victim under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS has been recorded and medical examination has been conducted. The investigation is continuing and the victim is presently not traceable. It is therefore argued that the defence of the petitioner regarding false implication, previous complaints, professional relationship, alleged access to the case diary and alleged collusion between respondent No.4 and police officials are matters requiring investigation and evidence and cannot be conclusively determined in the present proceedings.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that the allegations in the FIR are specific, serious and supported by the subsequent investi