MP High Court: Earlier Acquittal Does Not Bar Fresh Stalking Charges Against Accused Doctor

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior has dismissed a criminal revision filed by a doctor accused of driving a woman to suicide, upholding a trial court order that framed charges of abetment of suicide, rape, stalking and sexual harassment.

Justice Pushpendra Yadav, in an order delivered on October 13, 2026, rejected the revision plea of Surendra Kirar, a BAMS doctor and Community Health Officer, who had challenged the February 24, 2025 order of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vidisha. The trial court had refused his discharge application and framed charges under Sections 306, 376, 354-D and 354-A of the Indian Penal Code.

According to the prosecution, the woman died by suicide on January 28, 2023. Her family alleged that Kirar had continuously harassed and stalked her and sent obscene messages, leading to an FIR under Section 306. A vaginal slide report later indicated the presence of human sperm, after which Sections 376, 354-D and 354-A were added.

Appearing for Kirar, Advocate Sanjay Gupta argued that his client was falsely implicated because of prior animosity. He submitted that the woman left no suicide note and that mere harassment or a quarrel does not amount to abetment. On the rape charge, he argued that sperm and a matching DNA profile do not show absence of consent, claiming the relationship was consensual. He also pointed to Kirar’s November 2022 acquittal in an earlier case lodged by the woman, and said the Cyber Cell report on the seized mobile phone was not yet on record.

Opposing the plea, Public Prosecutor Vikram Pippal, assisted by Advocate Mahendra Singh Yadav for the complainant, submitted that only grave suspicion need be seen at the charge-framing stage. They relied on the RFSL Bhopal DNA report matching the profile from the woman’s clothes with Kirar’s blood sample, witness accounts of repeated stalking and obscene messages, and a transfer application she filed on July 28, 2022 alleging mental torture and threats to her children.

The High Court sided with the State. Relying on Supreme Court rulings on instigation, including Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh and Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi), it observed that the alleged conduct “was not an isolated or stray incident, but continued over a period of time.”

The court noted allegations that Kirar entered the woman’s room in a drunken state, assaulted her, broke her phone and threatened to kill her parents and children and make her obscene videos viral. He also allegedly intercepted her on the way to work and contacted her repeatedly from different numbers despite being blocked. Taken at face value, the court said, this shows harassment that “cannot, at this stage, be brushed aside” as a mere quarrel.

Rejecting the argument on the missing suicide note, the court held: “Mere absence of a suicide note, by itself, cannot justify discharge.” Whether the conduct amounted to instigation, whether mens rea existed and whether there was a proximate link with the suicide, it said, are matters for trial.

On the rape charge, the bench held that the sperm report, DNA profiling report and other material raise “a grave suspicion” enough to frame the charge. Whether the relationship was consensual must be decided on evidence, and deciding it now would amount to “a premature ‘mini-trial’,” the court said.

The earlier acquittal, it noted, “arose from distinct allegations” and does not bar consideration of the present material. The pending Cyber Cell report, it added, “by itself, cannot be a ground for discharge” when witness statements, forensic material and Call Detail Records are on record.

Observing that the record admits of “two competing factual perspectives,” the court said a revisional court cannot weigh their probative value or substitute its view for that of the trial court. It dismissed the revision as “sans merit” and clarified that its observations are not a final opinion on the accused’s guilt or innocence.

Case Title: Surendra Kirar vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: October 13, 2026

Bench: Justice Pushpendra Yadav