“Process of Law Must Not Become an Instrument of Injustice”: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a Central Government employee accused of molestation inside a crowded bus, holding that the material collected during investigation did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged and that allowing the case to proceed would amount to abuse of process of law.

Justice Himanshu Joshi, sitting at the Jabalpur Bench, passed the order on February 13, 2026, in a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to the inherent powers earlier exercised under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The petitioner, Pankaj Mishra, had sought quashment of FIR for offences punishable under Sections 74, 75(1)(i) and 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 354, 354-A and 294 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 respectively). According to the prosecution, the complainant alleged that while travelling from Nagma to Rewa on February 20, 2025, the petitioner, who was in the same bus, touched her with his feet, caught hold of her hand when she objected, touched her body parts, abused her and caused her bangles to break.

Appearing for the petitioner, Shri Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate, assisted by Shri Shashank Shrivastava, argued that the allegations were false and motivated, and that the investigation had not been conducted fairly. It was further contended that the essential ingredients of the offences were not made out from the material collected during investigation and that the petitioner was entitled to protection under Section 218 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973). The State, represented by Panel Lawyer Shri Swatantra Pandey, opposed the plea, submitting that the FIR and statements disclosed cognizable offences.

After perusing the FIR and case diary, the court noted that the alleged incident took place in a heavily crowded public bus, where incidental physical contact between passengers “cannot be said to be unnatural”. Crucially, while statements of three passengers had been recorded, the bus driver and conductor specifically mentioned in the FIR as having intervened were not examined during investigation. The court observed that failure to examine such material independent witnesses created serious doubt about the prosecution version.

The court also found a significant inconsistency between the allegation of forceful grabbing of the complainant’s hand leading to breakage of bangles and the medical report, which disclosed no injury, abrasion, swelling or even superficial marks. The absence of any medical corroboration, the court said, “materially weakens the prosecution version,” particularly when viewed alongside other surrounding circumstances.

Holding that no specific or consistent allegation supported by independent evidence was available to prima facie establish the essential ingredients of the offences, the court termed the allegations “general and lacking in corroboration” in the factual matrix of a crowded bus.

While rejecting the petitioner’s claim for protection under Section 218 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) on the ground that the alleged act was not committed in discharge of official duty, the court nonetheless concluded that even on merits, the material did not disclose commission of the offences.

In a broader reflection, the court cautioned against misuse of stringent penal provisions. It observed that criminal law, particularly provisions meant to safeguard the dignity and bodily autonomy of women, is a “solemn legislative trust” and “is not intended to be wielded as a weapon to settle scores”. The court warned that reckless allegations can cause irreparable harm to an innocent person’s career, dignity and social standing, and that courts must ensure that “the process of law does not itself become an instrument of injustice”.

Emphasising that inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) are to be exercised to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, the court held that continuation of proceedings in the present case would amount to abuse of process. The FIR and all consequential proceedings were accordingly quashed. No order as to costs was passed.

Case Title: Pankaj Mishra v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: February 13, 2026

Bench: Justice Himanshu Joshi