Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shubham Ojha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 November, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30264
1 MCRC-45546-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 45546 of 2023
SHUBHAM OJHA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms Ayushi Singh Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri R S Yadav Ga appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
Shri Akhilesh Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent [R-2].
Reserved on : 24/11/2025
Pronounced on : 8/12/2025
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Milind Ramesh Phadke, Judge pronounced the following:
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the FIR dated 1.1.2023 registered at Crime No.1/2023 at Police Station University, District Gwalior for offence punishable under Sections 354, 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. The short facts of the case are that complainant/respondent No.2 on 20.11.2022 at about 3:30 PM, while she was at her workplace, two co- workers Shubham Jha and Monu Chaurasia (petitioners) started arguing with Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 08-12-2025 19:03:15 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30264 2 MCRC-45546-2023 her over the issue of sitting on an office stool. Both of them abused her, picked a quarrel, and slapped her on the cheek. She further alleged that both accused misbehaved with her and tried to molest her. When she objected, they made obscene comments and behaved in a highly indecent manner. The complainant stated that when she shouted for help, Omprakash Sharma, who also works there, intervened and witnessed the entire incident. Before leaving, the accused persons threatened her, saying that she had been saved that day but would not be spared in the future. They also threatened to kill her. On the basis of her complaint, an FIR was registered for offences under Sections 354, 323, 294 506 and 34 of IPC
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations levelled against the present petitioners are false. The complainant has concocted a fabricated story only to falsely implicate the petitioners in the alleged offence. It is further submitted that before registration of the present FIR, the complainant had already lodged a complaint regarding the same incident on 21.11.2022, which was registered as NCR No. 131/22 under Sections 323, 504, and 34 of the IPC. In that NCR, there was no allegation whatsoever of sexual harassment. However, at a much belated stage, the complainant has filed the present FIR regarding the same incident and falsely added an allegation under Section 354 of the IPC, even though no such incident ever occurred. It is further submitted that both the NCR and the present FIR mention the same date of the incident. The FIR appears to be an afterthought, lodged only with the intention of implicating the petitioners. Importantly, the NCR contains no allegation of sexual Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 08-12-2025 19:03:15 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30264 3 MCRC-45546-2023 harassment, but the complainant has changed her version in the FIR to falsely accuse the petitioners. The petitioners have not committed any offence, and the allegations made are false and therefore the instant FIR and consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed in the interests of justice.
4. Per contra, Counsel for the respondent/State as well as Counsel for the respondent No.2 had opposed the submissions so made by counsel for the petitioners and it was submitted that there are specific allegations against the present petitioners, therefore, they are not entitled for any relief and inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised.
5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Haryana Vs. Chaudhari Bhajanlal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 has laid down the following guidelines:-
"(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;
(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.LR. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;
(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made ii n the FIR or 'complaint' and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;
(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;
(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 08-12-2025 19:03:15 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30264 4 MCRC-45546-2023 sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
(g) where a criminal proceedings manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on. the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. [305D-H;
306A-E] 8.2. In the instant case, the, allegations made in the complaint, do clearly constitute a cognizable offence justify on and this case does not call for the exercise of extraordinary or inherent powers of the High Court to quash the F.LR. itself. [307B] State of West Bengal v. S.N. Basak, [1963] 2 SCR 52; distinguished.'
7. The legal position, which is culled out from the above enunciation is that if the allegations made in the first information report, are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, then the Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of process of law.
8. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and upon examining the material available on record, this Court finds merit in the contention that the present FIR appears to be an exaggerated and improved version of the earlier complaint (NCR No. 131/22) lodged by the complainant regarding the same incident. In the earlier NCR, there was no allegation of sexual harassment, and only minor offences were reported. However, in the present FIR, a new allegation under Section 354 of the IPC has been added at a later stage without any supporting material, which raises serious doubt about the credibility of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 08-12-2025 19:03:15 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30264 5 MCRC-45546-2023 allegations. Both complaints relate to the same date and the same incident, yet the complainant has substantially changed her version in the subsequent FIR. Such a deliberate change of allegations indicates that the FIR has been lodged with an ulterior motive and is an afterthought intended to falsely implicate the petitioners. The material placed on record does not disclose any specific or substantiated allegation that would justify continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners.
9. Thus, this Court finds that the FIR does not disclose commission of an offence against the present petitioners and, therefore, to prevent the abuse of process of law has no hesitation to quash the FIR dated 1.1.2023 registered at Crime No.1/2023 at Police Station University, District Gwalior for offence punishable under Sections 354, 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom so far as they relate to present petitioners.
10. Accordingly, the present petitioners are acquitted from the charges levelled against them. Hence, the petition is allowed and disposed of.
E-copy/certified copy as per rules.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE (aspr) Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 08-12-2025 19:03:15