'Genesis Of Relationship Doubtful': After Woman Admits She's Not Practising Advocate, MP High Court Quashes Her Rape FIR Against 'Client'

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed a rape FIR lodged by a woman against her alleged client after she admitted before the Court that she was not, in fact, a practising advocate. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 269]

Holding that the complainant-respondent's earlier claim that she had met the accused while professionally assisting him in a child custody dispute constituted the foundation of the prosecution case, the Court observed that the very genesis of the relationship between the parties had become doubtful.

The bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi added that the inconsistency is "not peripheral but goes to the very genesis of the relationship between the parties". It held:

"The admission made by respondent No.2 before this Court that she was not a practising advocate completely belies her categorical assertions contained in the written complaint as well as in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that she was practising as an advocate at Kota and had visited Jabalpur in that professional capacity to pursue the applicant's child custody litigation. This contradiction is not peripheral but goes to the very genesis of the relationship between the parties. Coupled with the absence of medical corroboration, absence of forensic evidence regarding administration of intoxicating substances, non-recovery of the alleged obscene videos and absence of any electronic evidence supporting the allegations, this Court is satisfied that continuation of the criminal proceedings would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law". 

The Court was dealing with the accused-government employee's (applicant) plea seeking quashing of FIR lodged under Sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) IPC.

The applicant claimed that during the pendency of matrimonial proceedings between him and his wife, he came in contact with respondent no 2, who initially offered professional assistance but later developed a personal relationship with him. There were photographs showing the applicant, respondent no 2 and her brother in Jabalpur. 

It was alleged that respondent no 2 insisted on marriage with the applicant despite being aware of his matrimonial dispute. But upon refusal from the applicant, the respondent no 2 reportedly filed a false complaint. The applicant claimed that respondent no 2 had previously implicated other persons in criminal cases. 

The counsel for the applicant argued that the alleged incident had occured on November 16, 2022, but the complaint was lodged on February 6, 2024, without any explanation for the delay of nearly 15 months. It was argued that the Trial Court, without considering the evidence, passed the order framing charges mechanically. 

The public prosecutor for the State argued that the FIR disclosed the commission of cognizable offence and the chargesheet was filed after due investigation. Therefore, there was sufficient ground to frame charges. 

Respondent no 2, who was also the original complainant, argued that she possessed a law degree and was working under a Senior Advocate in Rajasthan. She claimed to have met the applicant during his child custody dispute and visited Jabalpur at his request, where the applicant committed sexual assault upon her. She further claimed that she is also involved in a matrimonial dispute with her husband, who she believes is acting in collusion with the applicant to pressure and harass her. 

The court noted that the primary issue involved was that the applicant had alleged an established physical relationship with respondent no 2 on a false promise to marriage and thereafter threatened her. However, from the evidence collected, the court noted that respondent no 2 in her 164 CrPC statement described herself as a practising advocate. However, before the court, respondent no 2 admitted that she was not a practising advocate. 

The bench noted the contradiction in statements is not peripheral but goes to the roots of the case, as it was the foundation upon which the applicant met respondent no 2 for the first time. 

The bench observed, "Once the prosecutrix herself admits that she was not a practising advocate, the very basis on which she claims to have established contact with the applicant becomes demonstrably false. Such a material improvement cannot be treated as a minor discrepancy or omission. It goes to the root of the prosecution's case and renders the foundational version highly doubtful". 

Further, examining the medical evidence, the court noted that the examination did not disclose any external or internal injury suggestive of forcible sexual intercourse. Additionally, the medical expert has not disclosed any definite opinion regarding sexual intercourse.

Regarding the victim's claims that the applicant had made obscene videos of her using it to intimidate her, the court noted that no mobile phone, storage device, electronic record, cloud data or any other digital evidence containing such alleged obscene video has been recovered. 

Regarding the issue in filing FIR, the court held, "Though delay in lodging an FIR in cases of sexual offences is not by itself fatal, where such delay is coupled with material inconsistencies touching the very genesis of the prosecution case and absence of corroborative medical, scientific and electronic evidence, the cumulative effect cannot be ignored while considering whether continuation of prosecution would amount to abuse of the process of law". 

Therefore, the bench allowed the petition and set aside the FIR lodged against the applicant. 

Case Title: Abhishek Yadav v State of Madhya Pradesh, MCRC-7186-2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 269

For Applicant: Advocate Bhagwan Singh Thakur 

For State: Advocate Vijay Kumar Shukla

Click here to read/download the Order