Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gurusharan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 January, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33548
1 MCRC-27099-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 27099 of 2023
GURUSHARAN SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri APS Tomar - Public Prosecutor for the State.
Shri Rajiv Sharma - Advocate (through VC) along with Shri Quazi
Suhail - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
RESERVED ON :- 16/12/2025
DELIVERED ON :- 5/01/2026
ORDER
By invoking inherent powers of this Court, the present petition has been preferred by petitioner under Section 482 of CrPC seeking quashment of an F.I.R. bearing Crime No.93/2023 registered at Police Station Sirol, District Gwalior for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 506, 341, 384 of IPC as well as all consequential criminal proceedings initiated therefrom.
As per prosecution story, the complainant/prosecutrix, aged about 47 years, along with her sister, approached the police station and submitted a written complaint to the effect that her husband is working as an Assistant Professor in KRG College, Gwalior, where one Harshita Kushwaha (Rajawat) is a student. It was alleged that on 08 August 2022, at about 9:00 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33548 2 MCRC-27099-2023 p.m., Harshita Kushwaha made a telephonic call to the mobile phone of the husband of the prosecutrix, and both were allegedly engaged in conversation. When the prosecutrix inquired about the call, her husband informed her that he was speaking with Harshita, which led to a heated exchange between the spouses. On the following morning, at about 10:00 a.m., the prosecutrix went to the house of her sister situated at D.D. Nagar. From there, she allegedly used the mobile phone of Harshita's father to contact him and informed him about the aforesaid situation. It was further alleged that Harshita's father, Gurusharan Singh (the accused), informed the prosecutrix that the matter could not be discussed over the phone and asked her to meet him near the A.G. Pull area at around 8:00 p.m. Thereafter, at about 8:30 p.m., the prosecutrix reached near the Enat of AG Pull, where the accused Gurusharan Singh was present in his four-wheeler vehicle. The prosecutrix allegedly sat inside the vehicle, whereupon the accused demanded a sum of Rs.20 lakhs within five days, threatening that otherwise a false case of rape would be registered at the instance of his daughter against the husband of the prosecutrix. When the prosecutrix expressed her inability to arrange such a large amount and stated that she could arrange only Rs.1 lakh, the accused allegedly asked her to sit on the rear seat of the vehicle under the pretext of arranging a meeting with Harshita. Thereafter the accused drove the vehicle towards Alapur Road, Sirol, stopped it near shrubs at a secluded place, took out a knife, and forcibly committed rape upon the prosecutrix. After the incident, the accused allegedly dropped the prosecutrix near the Collectorate area and threatened her that if she disclosed the incident to anyone, a false NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33548 3 MCRC-27099-2023 rape case would be lodged against her husband by his daughter Harshita. It was further alleged that due to fear and shame, the prosecutrix did not disclose the incident to anyone and returned to her home. Subsequently, the accused allegedly attempted to approach the prosecutrix on several occasions when she went to school and market, with intention of maintaining physical relations with her. On 5 April 2023 at about 4:00 p.m., Harshita Kushwaha came to the house of the prosecutrix and inquired whether the demanded amount of Rs.20 lakhs had been arranged, reiterating the threat that a false rape case would otherwise be lodged against the husband of the prosecutrix. Thereafter, Harshita Kushwaha left the house. On the basis such allegations, the present FIR was registered.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present petition has been filed seeking quashment of FIR registered as Crime No. 93/2023 along with all consequential proceedings, as the same are manifestly illegal, malicious, and constitute a gross abuse of the process of law and even if the allegations made in the FIR and the prosecution story are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, no offence as alleged is made out against the petitioner. The allegations are inherently improbable, self-contradictory, and do not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. The FIR is based on conjectures and afterthoughts and has been lodged with an ulterior motive.
It was further submitted that the prosecution story alleged an incident dated 8 August 2022, whereas the FIR came to be registered only on 6 April 2023, after a delay of nearly eight months and the delay is inordinate and NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33548 4 MCRC-27099-2023 unexplained. The vague assertion of fear and threat is neither convincing nor supported by any contemporaneous material. During this entire period, the prosecutrix admittedly continued her normal routine, which completely demolishes the credibility of the allegations and renders the prosecution story highly doubtful.
It was further submitted that the entire genesis of the dispute lies in the alleged telephonic interaction between the husband of the prosecutrix, who is an Assistant Professor in KRG College, and the daughter of the present petitioner, who was a student of the same college. The present FIR has been maliciously engineered as a counterblast to conceal the serious criminal acts of the husband of the prosecutrix and to shield him from legal and disciplinary consequences.
It was further submitted that prior to the registration of the present FIR bearing Crime No. 93/2023 at Police Station Sirol, an earlier FIR bearing Crime No. 132/2023 had already been registered on 6 April 2023 at Police Station Kampoo, District Gwalior, at the instance of the daughter of the present petitioner against the husband of the present prosecutrix, for serious offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(b), 376(2)(n), 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The said FIR was registered at about 4:07 p.m., whereas the present FIR was registered later the same day at about 10:30 p.m., clearly demonstrating that the present case is a retaliatory and vindictive counterblast. In brief, the FIR lodged by the petitioner's daughter disclosed that she was a final-year B.Sc. student at KRG College during the year 2022 and came into contact with Santosh Yadav, Professor and Head of NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33548 5 MCRC-27099-2023 the Biotechnology Department of the said college, who is the husband of the present prosecutrix. It was alleged that taking advantage of his position, he developed familiarity with the petitioner's daughter under the false assurances of helping her in examinations and securing her future career, including promises of appointment as a Professor. It was further alleged that he subjected her to repeated sexual harassment, unwanted physical advances, threats, and coercion, culminating in forcible sexual intercourse on 27 February 2023 and again on 05 April 2023 under threat of killing her family members.
It was further submitted that after the registration of the said FIR against the husband of the prosecutrix, pressure tactics were adopted to compel the petitioner and his family to compromise the matter and when the petitioner refused to succumb to such pressure, the present false and fabricated FIR was got registered at Police Station Sirol with the sole intention of intimidating the petitioner and neutralizing the earlier FIR.
It was further submitted that the allegations in the present FIR regarding demand of Rs.20 lakhs, threat of lodging a false rape case, alleged kidnapping in a four-wheeler, and commission of rape at a secluded place are inherently improbable and defy normal human conduct. No independent witness, call detail records, contemporaneous complaint, medical evidence, or forensic material has been brought on record to support such grave allegations. The prosecutrix neither raised any alarm nor sought medical assistance at any point of time, which seriously undermines the prosecution case.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33548 6 MCRC-27099-2023 It was further submitted that on 5 April 2023, the daughter of the petitioner was abducted from her residence at Modern Town by persons including the prosecutrix of the present case and her sister, with intention of pressurizing her not to lodge the FIR against Santosh Yadav and the said incident was reported to Police Station Maharajpura, District Gwalior, and an FIR was subsequently registered on 9 June 2023 under Sections 294, 506 and 34 of IPC, wherein the role of the present prosecutrix was specifically mentioned.
It was also submitted that the conduct of the prosecutrix and the investigating agency reflects clear mala fide intentions and the prosecutrix had submitted a copy of her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. to the department/office of the petitioner. A statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is a confidential document forming part of the investigation and cannot be lawfully supplied to the complainant. Possession and circulation of such document by the prosecutrix clearly demonstrates bias, collusion, and a predetermined approach on the part of the investigating agency, thereby vitiating the entire investigation.
It was further submitted that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen with no criminal antecedents and has been falsely implicated only because he is the father of the prosecutrix in the earlier FIR lodged against the husband of the present complainant, therefore, the present proceedings are nothing but an attempt to harass, humiliate, and coerce the petitioner by misusing the criminal justice system.
It was further submitted that it is well settled that the inherent powers NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33548 7 MCRC-27099-2023 of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice and the present case squarely falls within the categories laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and subsequent judgments, where criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed on account of mala fide intention, improbability of allegations, and absence of essential ingredients of the alleged offences.
In view of the aforesaid submissions, it was prayed that FIR registered as Crime No. 93/2023 at Police Station Sirol, District Gwalior (M.P.), along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom be quashed.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State supported by the counsel for the complainant opposed the present petition and prayed for its rejection by submitting that the allegations made in the FIR, when read as a whole, clearly disclosd the commission of serious cognizable offences, including the offence of rape, criminal intimidation, and extortion. It was further submitted that at the stage of considering a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court is not required to conduct a mini trial or to appreciate the veracity of the allegations. The delay in lodging the FIR has been sufficiently explained in the complaint itself on account of continuous threats, fear, and social stigma attached to the offence, which is a recognized ground in cases of sexual assault. The statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. supports the prosecution version, and the allegations cannot be brushed aside merely on the ground of delay or alleged improbability.
It was further submitted that the defence sought to be raised by the NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33548 8 MCRC-27099-2023 petitioner, including the plea of counterblast, existence of another FIR, alleged false implication, and questions regarding motive, are all matters of evidence which can be adjudicated only during trial. The registration of an earlier FIR by the petitioner's daughter does not ipso facto render the present FIR false, nor does it justify quashment at the threshold. The investigation is still pending, and the material collected prima facie supports the prosecution case. Therefore, interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be wholly unwarranted and would amount to stifling a legitimate prosecution at its nascent stage.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. The FIR in question has been lodged after an inordinate delay of nearly eight months from the date of the alleged incident. Though delay in lodging an FIR in cases of sexual offence is not by itself fatal, the Apex Court has consistently held that where delay is unexplained or the explanation is not convincing, the same assumes significance while testing the credibility of the prosecution story. In the present case, the explanation of fear and threat is vague and unsubstantiated, particularly when the prosecutrix admittedly continued her normal routine. Such unexplained delay materially affects the prosecution case at the threshold stage. Reference may be made to Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1, and Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1972) 3 SCC 393.
This Court finds substance in the contention that the impugned FIR is a counterblast to the earlier FIR registered at Police Station Kampoo at the instance of the petitioner's daughter against the husband of the present NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33548 9 MCRC-27099-2023 prosecutrix for serious sexual offences and the chronology of events clearly establishes that the FIR against the husband of the prosecutrix was registered earlier on the same day, and only thereafter, the present FIR was lodged. The Apex Court has repeatedly held that criminal proceedings instituted with mala fide intention or as a retaliatory measure deserve to be quashed. Reliance is placed on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1.
On a plain reading of the FIR, this Court finds that the allegations are inherently improbable and do not inspire confidence, as the alleged demand of Rs.20 lakhs, threat of false implication, abduction from a public place, and commission of rape at a secluded spot without any contemporaneous complaint, medical evidence, or independent corroboration, defy normal human conduct. The Apex Court has held that where allegations are absurd, inherently improbable, or do not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offence, the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings. Reference may be made to R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, and Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P., (2023) 6 SCC 404.
This Court also takes note of the serious irregularities in the investigation, particularly the admitted possession and circulation of the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the complainant, which is a confidential document forming part of the investigation. Such conduct raises serious doubt about the fairness and impartiality of the investigation. The Supreme Court has emphasized that a tainted or biased investigation undermines the foundation of criminal prosecution. Reliance may be placed NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33548 10 MCRC-27099-2023 on Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254, and Pooja Pal v. Union of India, (2016) 3 SCC 135.
It is well settled that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are meant to prevent abuse of the process of the court and to secure the ends of justice. Where continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to harassment and misuse of the criminal law, the High Court is duty-bound to intervene. Reference may be made to Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, and State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699.
In view of the totality of facts and circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the present case falls squarely within the categories laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra), warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The FIR registered as Crime No. 93/2023 at Police Station Sirol, District Gwalior (M.P.), and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioner, are hereby quashed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR, pwn* 2.5.4.20=b864d1ab4ace2215bfcf3ab301c34d631287f1b1cdd90b4a49f265f02d9d 593f, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR,CID - 7064434, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=61b9d129971d2ea4fd4455ed49ea436ea65e26164beeed8915319 1c56e98ce21, cn=PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2026.01.06 12:27:47 +05'30'