Introduction:

In Pankaj Mishra v. State of Madhya Pradesh [MCRC-978-2026], the Madhya Pradesh High Court delivered a significant ruling underscoring the need for judicial vigilance in cases involving serious allegations under penal law. Justice Himanshu Joshi quashed an FIR registered against a Central Government employee accused of sexual overtures, assault, and obscene acts under Sections 74, 75(1), and 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The Court observed that the medical report and surrounding circumstances rendered the allegations doubtful and unworthy of continuation in criminal prosecution. Importantly, the judgment contains a broader reflection on the increasing tendency to invoke grave penal provisions as instruments of retaliation in matters arising out of personal discord. Justice Joshi emphasized that criminal law provisions designed to protect the dignity and bodily autonomy of women are a solemn legislative trust, not tools for settling personal scores. The case arose from an incident alleged to have taken place on February 20, 2025, in a crowded public bus, where the complainant accused the petitioner of inappropriate physical contact, assault, and misbehavior. On the basis of her complaint, an FIR was registered. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR, contending that he had been falsely implicated and that the prosecution’s narrative was riddled with inconsistencies. The State opposed the petition, arguing that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences and therefore warranted trial. After examining the material on record, including witness statements and medical findings, the High Court concluded that the allegations lacked prima facie credibility and allowed the petition, thereby quashing the FIR.

Arguments of the Petitioner:

The petitioner, represented by Advocates Ajay Pal Singh and Shashank Shrivastava, contended that the FIR was a product of false implication and exaggeration. It was submitted that the petitioner, being a Central Government employee, had an unblemished service record and no prior criminal antecedents. The defence emphasized that the alleged incident occurred in a heavily crowded public bus, where incidental physical contact between passengers is not uncommon. In such circumstances, it was argued, mere proximity or inadvertent touch cannot automatically be construed as criminal intent or sexual overture. The petitioner’s counsel highlighted glaring inconsistencies in the prosecution’s version. The complainant alleged that her bangles broke during the scuffle, implying forceful physical contact. However, the medical examination conducted thereafter did not reveal any injury, abrasion, or sign of trauma. The absence of medical corroboration, according to the petitioner, fundamentally weakened the prosecution’s case. Further, the defence pointed out that although the complainant claimed that the bus conductor intervened during the incident, neither the conductor nor the bus driver—arguably the most independent and material witnesses—were examined or their statements recorded. While three other witnesses’ statements were recorded, the omission to examine key independent witnesses cast serious doubt on the veracity of the allegations. The petitioner contended that the prosecution’s failure to secure such crucial evidence suggested that the case lacked substance. It was argued that continuation of criminal proceedings on such shaky foundations would amount to abuse of the process of law, causing irreparable harm to the petitioner’s career, reputation, and dignity. The defence thus prayed for quashing of the FIR to prevent miscarriage of justice.

Arguments of the State:

The State, represented by Advocate Swatantara Pandey, opposed the plea for quashment. It was argued that the FIR and the statements recorded during investigation disclosed the commission of cognizable offences under the BNS. The prosecution maintained that the complainant had clearly alleged that the petitioner touched her with his feet, caught her hand upon objection, and proceeded to touch her body parts without consent, accompanied by abusive behavior. According to the State, such allegations, if taken at face value, constituted offences under Sections 74 and 75(1) of the BNS, which criminalize assault and unwelcome physical contact involving sexual overtures. The State submitted that at the stage of quashing, the Court should not undertake a meticulous evaluation of evidence or weigh inconsistencies. It contended that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC (or its equivalent procedural provision under BNS framework) must be exercised sparingly, and only in cases where the allegations are patently absurd or inherently improbable. The prosecution argued that minor discrepancies or absence of visible injury should not overshadow the complainant’s testimony, particularly in cases involving offences against women, where trauma may not always manifest in physical marks. It was further contended that the investigation was at a nascent stage and that the truthfulness of allegations should be tested during trial rather than being pre-emptively terminated. On these grounds, the State urged the Court to dismiss the petition and allow the criminal process to proceed.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Himanshu Joshi undertook a careful scrutiny of the material placed on record. The Court began by acknowledging the gravity of offences intended to safeguard the dignity and bodily autonomy of women. It observed that such provisions embody a solemn legislative trust and must be invoked to redress genuine grievances and deter real transgressions. However, the Court cautioned against the growing tendency to invoke serious penal provisions as instruments of retaliation in matters arising from trivial or personal discord. The Court observed that when grave allegations are levelled lightly or recklessly without foundational substance, the consequences extend beyond the courtroom, potentially causing irreparable harm to an innocent person’s career, social standing, and personal dignity. Turning to the facts, the Court noted that the alleged incident occurred in a heavily crowded public bus. In such a setting, incidental physical contact cannot automatically be presumed to be unnatural or malicious. The Court found it significant that although the complainant stated that the conductor intervened during the incident, his statement was not recorded. Similarly, the bus driver—another independent witness—was not examined. The omission to record statements of the most material independent witnesses, particularly when they were present at the spot, created serious doubt about the prosecution’s version. The Court further scrutinized the medical report, which did not disclose any injury or abrasion despite allegations of forceful physical contact sufficient to break bangles. While acknowledging that not every assault results in visible injury, the Court observed that the complete absence of medical corroboration, when juxtaposed with the narrative of forceful scuffle, materially weakened the prosecution’s case. The inconsistency between the alleged force and the unremarkable medical findings assumed significance in evaluating prima facie credibility. Considering the cumulative effect of these circumstances—the crowded setting, lack of independent witness examination, and absence of medical corroboration—the Court concluded that the allegations were doubtful and unworthy of continuation in criminal prosecution. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR, emphasizing that criminal law must not be permitted to become a weapon for settling personal scores.