Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Single Bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi, quashed an FIR registered against a Central Government employee for alleged sexual overtures, physical assault, and obscene conduct towards a woman co-passenger in a public bus. The Court noted that the medical examination report showed no injury corroborating the complainant's account, and that the surrounding circumstances rendered the allegations doubtful and unworthy of continuation in criminal prosecution. Justice Joshi observed that the Court cannot remain indifferent to the growing tendency of deploying serious penal provisions as tools of retaliation in matters rooted in personal discord, far removed from the true purpose of such laws.

As per the prosecution case, the complainant alleged that while travelling in a bus from Nagma to Rewa, the petitioner, who was also travelling in the same bus, touched her with his feet and, upon objection, caught hold of her hand, touched her body parts, abused her and misbehaved with her, resulting in breakage of her bangles. On the basis of her report, the FIR was registered.

Also Read: Saving Clause Under Immigration And Foreigners Act, 2025 Does Not Authorise Fresh Proceedings For Omissions After It's Repeal: MP High Court

The petitioner contended that he is a Central Government employee and was falsely implicated due to animosity and political influence. It was argued that the investigation was not conducted fairly and that the ingredients of the alleged offences were not made out from the material collected. The petitioner also claimed protection under Section 218 of BNSS, 2023.

The State opposed the petition, submitting that the FIR and statements recorded during investigation disclosed commission of cognizable offences.

The Court recorded, “It is not in dispute that the alleged incident took place in a public bus which, as per the material on record, was heavily crowded. In such a situation, incidental physical contact between passengers cannot be said to be unnatural.”

Regarding investigation, the Court observed, “The case diary reveals that statements of three passengers have been recorded; however, admittedly, the statements of the bus driver and conductor have not been recorded, though the FIR specifically mentions that the conductor intervened during the alleged incident.” It further noted, “The omission to examine the most material independent witnesses, particularly when they were present at the spot, creates serious doubt about the prosecution version.”

On medical evidence, the Court stated, “the medical examination report does not disclose any such injury, abrasion, swelling, redness, or even superficial marks on the wrist or hand of the complainant.” It added, “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 Court recorded, “The complete absence of any such medical corroboration materially weakens the prosecution version.” It further stated, “This incongruity, when viewed in conjunction with the surrounding circumstances, renders the allegation doubtful and unworthy of continuation in criminal prosecution.”

The Court recorded, “From the material collected during investigation, no specific or consistent allegation supported by independent evidence is available to prima facie establish the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 74, 75(1)(i) and 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.”

On the plea of statutory protection, the Court stated, “this Court finds that the alleged act was not committed in discharge of official duty. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to protection under Section 218 of BNSS.”

The Court further observed, “The Court 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 added, “Courts, therefore, must be vigilant to ensure that the process of law does not itself become an instrument of injustice.”

On exercise of inherent power, the Court recorded, “The inherent power under Section 528 of BNSS is to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice.” It concluded, “In the present case, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner, in absence of sufficient material constituting the offences alleged, would amount to abuse of process of law.”

Also Read: Saving Clause Under Immigration And Foreigners Act, 2025 Does Not Authorise Fresh Proceedings For Omissions After It's Repeal: MP High Court

The Court directed, “Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The FIR registered at Crime No.72/2025 at Police Station Baikunthpur, District Rewa for the offences punishable under Sections 74, 75(1)(i) and 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed. No order as to costs.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Shri Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate (through V.C.) with Shri Shashank Shrivastava, Advocate

For the Respondents: Shri Swatantra Pandey, Panel Lawyer

Case Title: Pankaj Mishra v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-JBP:15046
Case Number: Misc. Criminal Case No. 978 of 2026
Bench: Justice Himanshu Joshi