'Law Can't Be Used To Settle Personal Scores': MP High Court Quashes Obscenity FIR Against Govt Officer Citing Doubtful Allegations
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed an FIR against a Central Government employee accused of sexual overtures, assault and obscene acts with a woman, observing that the medical report, along with the surrounding circumstances rendered the allegations unworthy and doubtful.
Justice Himanshu Joshi said that it cannot remain oblivious to the "growing tendency of invoking serious penal provisions as instruments of retaliation in matters arising out of trivial or personal discord, wholly divorced from the true import and object of such enactments".
It said:
"Criminal law, particularly provisions designed to safeguard the dignity and bodily autonomy of women, is a solemn legislative trust meant to redress genuine grievances and deter real transgressions; it is not intended to be wielded as a weapon to settle scores, gratify wounded pride, or exert undue pressure.When allegations of grave nature are lightly or recklessly levelled without foundational substance, the consequences are not confined to the precincts of the courtroom. An innocent person may be exposed to irreparable harm viz. loss of career, social standing, personal dignity, and the stigma of scandal that lingers far beyond the culmination of trial".
A petition was filed seeking quashing of an FIR registered for offences punishable for using criminal force and assault against a woman (Section 74), physical contact involving unwelcome and sexual overtures (Section 75(1)) and for obscene acts in public places (Section 296) of BNS.
Per the prosecution, the complainant was travelling in a bus on February 20, 2025, when the petitioner started touching her with his feet. Upon objection, he allegedly caught her hand and touched her body parts without permission, abused and misbehaved with her. On this basis, she lodged a complaint leading to the registration of this FIR.
The counsel for the petitioner contended that he was a Central Government Employee and was falsely implicated.
The counsel for the State contended that the FIR and statements disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence and therefore, no case of quashment was made out.
The court noted that the incident took place on a public bus that was heavily crowded. The court observed that in such a situation, physical contact between passengers cannot be said to be "unnatural".
The court further noted that the statements specify that the conductor intervened during the incident but that his statement was not recorded. It was also noted that while three witness statements were recorded, the statements of the bus driver and the conductor were not recorded.
"The omission to examine the most material independent witnesses, particularly when they were present at the spot, creates serious doubt about the prosecution version", the court observed.
The court further noted that the complainant alleged that during the incident, her bangles broke, but the medical examination did not disclose any injury or abrasion.
"Ordinarily, if sufficient force had been applied so as to cause breakage of bangles during a physical scuffle, some corresponding sign of impact or trauma would reasonably be expected to be present.The complete absence of any such medical corroboration materially weakens the prosecution version. While it is true that every allegation of assault may not necessarily result in visible injury, the inconsistency between the narrative of forceful physical contact and the unremarkable medical findings assumes significance in the overall evaluation of prima facie credibility. This incongruity, when viewed in conjunction with the surrounding circumstances, renders the allegation doubtful and unworthy of continuation in criminal prosecution", the court observed.
The court held that the circumstantial evidence conflicts with the medical report renders the allegations doubtful and unworthy of continuation in criminal prosecution.
The court allowed the plea and quashed the FIR.
Case Title: Pankaj Mishra v State of MP [MCRC-978-2026]
For Petitioner: Advocates Ajay Pal Singh and Shashank Shrivastava
For State: Advocate Swatantara Pandey