The Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed an FIR against a Central Government employee accused of assault, unwelcome sexual overtures, and obscene acts. The Court held that the medical record and surrounding circumstances rendered the prosecution version doubtful.
Justice Himanshu Joshi observed that courts cannot ignore the growing tendency to invoke serious penal provisions as tools of retaliation in disputes arising from trivial or personal discord. He stressed that such provisions must serve their intended purpose.
The Court described criminal law provisions protecting the dignity and bodily autonomy of women as a “solemn legislative trust.” It stated that lawmakers designed these provisions to address genuine grievances and deter real misconduct. They are not meant to settle personal scores or exert pressure. The Court cautioned that reckless allegations can cause irreparable harm, including damage to career, reputation, and personal dignity.
FIR and Allegations
The petitioner sought quashing of an FIR registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The FIR invoked:
- Section 74 (assault or criminal force against a woman)
- Section 75(1) (physical contact involving unwelcome sexual overtures)
- Section 296 (obscene acts in public places)
According to the prosecution, the complainant was travelling in a bus on February 20, 2025. She alleged that the petitioner touched her with his feet. When she objected, he allegedly caught her hand, touched her without consent, and misbehaved. Police registered the FIR based on her complaint.
Submissions Before the Court
Counsel for the petitioner argued that authorities falsely implicated him. He highlighted that the accused serves as a Central Government employee.
The State opposed the plea. It argued that the FIR and witness statements disclosed cognizable offences. Therefore, it contended that the Court should not quash the proceedings.
Court’s Assessment
The High Court examined the circumstances closely. It noted that the alleged incident occurred inside a heavily crowded public bus. In such settings, incidental physical contact between passengers can occur. The Court observed that such contact cannot automatically be treated as unnatural or intentional.
The complainant claimed that the bus conductor intervened. However, investigators did not record the conductor’s statement. Although police recorded statements of three witnesses, they did not examine the bus driver or conductor. The Court described them as the most material independent witnesses. This omission, it held, created serious doubt about the prosecution case.
The complainant also alleged that her bangles broke during the scuffle. However, the medical examination did not reveal any injury or abrasion. Justice Joshi noted that if force sufficient to break bangles had been used, one would ordinarily expect some visible sign of impact. While he clarified that not every assault results in visible injury, he found the inconsistency significant at the stage of assessing prima facie credibility.
The Court concluded that the circumstantial material conflicted with the medical report. These inconsistencies weakened the prosecution’s version. As a result, the Court held that the allegations were doubtful and unfit to proceed as a criminal prosecution.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR.
Case Details
Case Title: Pankaj Mishra v State of MP
For Petitioner: Advocates Ajay Pal Singh and Shashank Shrivastava
For State: Advocate Swatantara Pandey
