The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to quash an FIR against a practising advocate accused of raping his ex-client, noting that the advocate-client relationship does not render the allegations inherently impossible at the stage of registration of the FIR. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 354]

Noting that "the FIR itself proceeds from the existence of such relationship and alleges that the alleged criminal acts occurred subsequently", the bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi stated:

"...the fact that the petitioner and respondent No.4 had an Advocate-client relationship does not, at the stage of registration of the FIR, render the allegations inherently impossible. Indeed, the FIR itself proceeds from the existence of such relationship and alleges that the alleged criminal acts occurred subsequently. Whether the allegations represent an afterthought arising out of a professional dispute or disclose genuine criminal conduct is a matter which cannot be determined merely by examining the Vakalatnama or the order-sheets of the matrimonial proceedings". 

The petitioner, who was a practising advocate, was previously representing the victim in her matrimonial dispute before the Trial Court; subsequently, he withdrew from her matter and issued a No Objection Certificate (NOC). It was contended that, aggrieved by his withdrawal, the complainant filed a false case against him. In his petition, he sought to quash the FIR registered in Rewa for rape (Section 64) of the BNS and for consequential reliefs. The petitioner further sought fair and impartial investigations against the complainant for lodging a false complaint and departmental action against police officials allegedly responsible for irregularities in conducting the investigation. 

Per the complaint, the petitioner had allegedly pressured the complainant to compromise in her matrimonial dispute. Further, it was alleged that the petitioner had made obscene calls and subjected the complainant to repeated sexual assault. She further alleged that after discovering her pregnancy, she asked the petitioner to take medicines for termination.  

Per the petitioner, he withdrew from the complainant's matter and issued a No Objection Certificate (NOC), and thus she filed complaints against him. The petitioner referred to the earlier complaints and police report to argue that the complainant has a history of making false complaints against different persons. The petitioner also relied on the Action Taken Report and minutes of the proceedings before the National Commissioner for Scheduled Castes, asserting that the allegations against him were earlier found unsubstantiated. 

The counsel for the State argued that the FIR contains specific allegations of repeated sexual assault and allegations concerning pregnancy, which needed to be investigated. The counsel further argued that the allegations are specific and serious and are supported by subsequent investigative material. It was stated that the complainant was initially acquainted with the petitioner in the capacity of Advocate and client. Further, the counsel argued that previous complaints allegedly filed by the complainant do not establish the present allegations as false. 

The court noted that the complainant had attributed specific acts to the petitioner, including dates and places where the alleged sexual acts occurred. The Court also noted that the petitioner had allegedly narrated circumstances preceding and following the incidents. 

The bench further noted that to determine whether the allegations are true are all matters of investigation. Therefore, the court held that the credibility of the police informant cannot be assessed at this stage. 

Referring to the petitioner's primary contention that the complainant had a history of lodging false complaints, the court noted that even if the fact about the history of making false complaints is true, the same does not conclusively establish the allegations contained in the present FIR. "Each criminal allegation has to be examined on its own facts and on the material collected in the investigation", the court stated. 

The bench further stated that the Action Taken Report of the National Commissioner for Scheduled Castes does not justify the quashing of the subsequent FIR. The court noted that the petitioner had alleged that the complainant obtained access to the case diary and relied upon material in proceedings before the Session Court. The court noted that such an allegation warrants examination by a competent police authority. 

Referring to the petitioner's contention that his professional reputation and right to dignity under Article 21, the court emphasized, 

"The right to reputation is undoubtedly an aspect of the right to life and personal liberty. However, the protection of reputation cannot be translated into a principle that a person against whom specific cognizable allegations are made must be insulated from investigation merely because he is a professional of standing". 

The court noted the subsequent development, noting that the competent authority, the Sub Divisional Officer, has been appointed to directly obtain the case diary and all relevant documents to investigate the points raised by the complainant and ensure speedy disposal of the investigation. 

Thus, the court held that there was no need to issue separate directions for a court-monitored investigation. The court also rejected the petitioner's prayer seeking restraint from coercive action, noting that the investigation would be rendered ineffective if such relief were granted. 

The court also refused to grant blanket directions restraining disclosure of the petitioner's name in the media, observing that investigating agencies and concerned authorities are bound by directions passed by the Supreme Court concerning disclosure of the identity and privacy of the person involved in a criminal investigation into a sexual offence. 

Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition. 

Case Title: PP v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-24408-2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 354

For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Anil Khare with Advocate Priyanka Agrawal

For State: Government Advocate Mukesh Shukla 

For Complainant: Advocate Lawkush Mishra

Click here to read/download the Order