Advocate-Client Relationship Does Not Make Sexual Assault Allegations Impossible : Madhya Pradesh HC

Jabalpur: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has declined to quash an FIR alleging repeated sexual assault and offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered against a practising advocate on a complaint filed by a woman he had earlier represented in matrimonial proceedings, holding that the allegations, taken at face value, disclosed cognizable offences that could not be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.

Justice Himanshu Joshi was hearing a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the advocate, seeking quashing of the FIR registered at Police Station Chorhata, District Rewa, for offences under Sections 64, 64(2)(h), 64(2)(m), 70, 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with a direction for a fair investigation, action against the complainant for allegedly lodging false complaints, and departmental action against police officials said to have been responsible for irregularities in an unrelated investigation.

According to the FIR lodged on 14.05.2025, the complainant, whom the petitioner had earlier represented in her matrimonial dispute, alleged that after he withdrew from her case and issued a no objection certificate, he pressurised her to compromise the dispute, made obscene calls, and subjected her to repeated sexual assault on three occasions in December 2024 and January and February 2025. She further alleged that on discovering her pregnancy in February 2025, the petitioner asked her to take medicines to terminate it.

The petitioner argued that the FIR was a retaliatory proceeding filed after he refused to continue as her counsel, pointing to earlier complaints by the complainant against other persons that had been found unsubstantiated, as well as an Action Taken Report and proceedings before the National Commission for Scheduled Castes in which allegations against him were said to have been found without material. He contended that the complainant had a history of lodging false complaints and had allegedly obtained monetary compensation by invoking the SC/ST Act in other matters, and that the prosecution had caused serious prejudice to his professional standing.

The State opposed the petition, submitting that it involved disputed questions of fact not amenable to writ jurisdiction, that the FIR contained specific allegations of assault on identified dates along with allegations concerning pregnancy, and that the complainant's statement had already been recorded and a medical examination conducted, with investigation ongoing though the complainant was presently not traceable. Counsel for the complainant submitted that her earlier complaints did not establish that the present allegations were false, and that the petitioner could not seek a finding of innocence at this stage by relying on disputed documents and his own interpretation of other proceedings.

Examining the rival contentions, the court held 

the FIR could not be said to be bereft of particulars or to disclose no offence, since the complainant had attributed specific acts to the petitioner with particular dates and places, and that whether the allegations were true, whether the petitioner was present at the relevant places, and whether the claims were supported by electronic and medical evidence were all matters for investigation that the court could not determine by substituting its own assessment for that of the investigating agency.

The court held that a previous complaint found unsubstantiated was not, by itself, proof that a subsequent complaint by the same person was necessarily false, and that each allegation had to be examined on its own facts. It further held that the advocate client relationship between the parties did not render the allegations inherently impossible, since the FIR itself proceeded from that relationship and alleged that the offending acts occurred afterward, and that whether the complaint reflected an afterthought arising from a professional dispute or genuine criminal conduct could not be determined merely by examining the vakalatnama or the order sheets of the matrimonial case.

On the petitioner's reliance on the proceedings before the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, the court observed that an administrative or preliminary inquiry could not necessarily be treated as a judicial adjudication of the truth or falsity of allegations subsequently incorporated in a detailed FIR. It similarly held that alleged irregularities in an unrelated investigation, even if they occurred, did not by themselves establish that the present FIR was false, since the two issues were legally distinct.

While acknowledging that the petitioner's right to reputation formed part of his right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, the court held that this could not be translated into a principle insulating a professional of standing from investigation merely on that basis, and that the court had to balance individual rights against the obligation of the criminal justice system to investigate serious allegations in accordance with law.

The court noted a subsequent development, namely an order dated 04.06.2026 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Rewa Zone, appointing a different Sub Divisional Officer of Police as Inquiry Officer to conduct further investigation after the complainant herself sought a fair probe, and held that this substantially addressed the prayer for an impartial investigation, making a separate direction for court monitored investigation unnecessary. It directed that the newly entrusted investigating officer conduct the probe fairly, objectively and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by either side's pleadings.

The court declined the prayers for a blanket restraint on coercive action against the petitioner and for a sweeping direction restraining media disclosure of his identity or the investigation, while noting that the investigating agency remained bound to follow applicable law and Supreme Court directions on privacy in cases involving sexual offences. It also declined, at this stage, the prayer for criminal or departmental action against the complainant or the named police officials, leaving the petitioner free to pursue such remedies before the competent authority if he possessed material to support them.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed insofar as it sought quashing of the FIR and the consequential criminal proceedings, with the investigation to continue before the officer now entrusted with it.

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Anil Khare, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Priyank Agrawal, Advocate.

For the State (Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 5): Mr. Mukesh Shukla, Government Advocate. For Respondent No. 4 (Complainant): Mr. Lawkush Mishra, Advocate.

Case Title: PP vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, Writ Petition No. 24408 of 2025