MP High Court: Declines To Quash Advocate Client Rape FIR

• The Madhya Pradesh High Court refused to quash a rape FIR filed against a Rewa advocate by his former client.
• The advocate is accused of sexual assault on three occasions, making obscene calls, and pressuring for pregnancy termination between December 2024 and February 2025.
• The court ruled that specific allegations of cognizable offenses require investigation and cannot be decided in a writ petition.
• It clarified that a past advocate-client relationship does not make assault charges 'inherently impossible,' especially if the alleged acts occurred after the professional engagement ended.
• The court emphasized that a professional's standing does not grant immunity from investigation into specific criminal allegations, even when allegations of false complaints are made against the accuser.

The court underscored that a professional's standing does not grant immunity from investigation into specific criminal allegations, even when counter-allegations of false complaints are leveled against the accuser.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, sitting at its Jabalpur bench, has declined to quash a criminal case initiated against a Rewa-based advocate. The case stems from an FIR filed by his former client, who alleges sexual assault and other offenses. Justice Himanshu Joshi presided over the writ petition, which sought the dismissal of the FIR and other relief.

The complainant, identified as Respondent No. 4, had previously been represented by the advocate in her matrimonial dispute. According to her allegations, after the advocate withdrew from her case and issued a No Objection Certificate, he began pressuring her to compromise the dispute. She further claimed that he made obscene calls and sexually assaulted her on three separate occasions between December 2024 and February 2025. Upon discovering she was pregnant, the advocate allegedly instructed her to take medication to terminate the pregnancy.

These serious allegations led to the registration of Crime No. 258/2025 at Police Station Chorhata in Rewa district on May 14, 2025. The charges were filed under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the SC/ST Act. The advocate subsequently petitioned the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking to quash the MP High Court advocate client rape FIR, requesting a fair probe, and demanding action against the complainant for allegedly lodging false complaints, as well as departmental action against certain police officials.

During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Anil Khare, assisted by advocate Priyank Agrawal, represented the petitioner. They contended that the FIR was a retaliatory measure, filed shortly after the National Commission for Scheduled Castes had found earlier complaints against the advocate to be unsubstantiated. The defense relied on the Commission's Action Taken Report and highlighted other instances where the complainant allegedly obtained monetary compensation by invoking the SC/ST Act, suggesting a pattern of false complaints.

Conversely, Government Advocate Mukesh Shukla, representing the State, opposed the advocate's plea. He argued that the FIR clearly disclosed specific, cognizable offenses that could not be adjudicated under writ jurisdiction. Shukla also informed the court that the victim's statement had been recorded, and a medical examination had already been conducted. Advocate Lawkush Mishra, representing the complainant, further asserted that the unsubstantiated nature of previous complaints did not automatically invalidate the current allegations, emphasizing the necessity for the investigation to proceed unimpeded.

The High Court ultimately sided with the State and the complainant, refusing to quash the criminal case. Justice Joshi observed that the informant had attributed specific acts to the petitioner, detailing particular dates, places, and narrating the circumstances surrounding the alleged incidents. The court clarified that the veracity of these allegations and their corroboration by electronic or medical evidence were matters squarely within the purview of the ongoing investigation.

Addressing the advocate's claims of false complaints, the court rejected the argument that proceedings by the National Commission for Scheduled Castes should discredit the FIR. It held that a previous complaint found to be unsubstantiated does not, by itself, prove that every subsequent complaint made by the same individual is necessarily false. Crucially, the court also determined that the prior advocate-client relationship between the parties did not render the allegations inherently impossible, especially since the FIR itself indicated that the alleged acts occurred after the professional engagement had concluded. The court underscored that a professional's standing does not grant immunity from investigation into specific criminal allegations, even when counter-allegations of false complaints are leveled against the accuser. While acknowledging the petitioner's right to reputation under Article 21, the court affirmed that this right could not insulate an individual facing specific cognizable allegations from a thorough investigation, regardless of their professional status.

This ruling clarifies that a past advocate-client relationship does not inherently prevent criminal charges, particularly if the alleged acts occurred after the professional engagement ended. Lawyers should note that professional status does not grant immunity from investigation for specific, cognizable offenses, even when allegations of false complaints are made against the accuser.

Source: Reporting based on judicial proceedings