MP High Court: Advocate-Client Relationship Doesn't Make Assault Charge Inherently Impossible

The Madhya Pradesh High Court's Jabalpur bench has refused to quash a criminal case registered against a Rewa-based advocate accused of sexually assaulting a woman he had earlier represented in her matrimonial dispute, holding that the allegations were specific and required investigation rather than judicial interference at the threshold.

Justice Himanshu Joshi was hearing the writ petition filed by the advocate under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking quashing of an FIR registered against him at Police Station Chorhata in Rewa district, along with a direction for a fair probe, action against the complainant for allegedly lodging false complaints, and departmental action against certain police officials.

According to the case, petitioner had represented the complainant, respondent No.4, in matrimonial proceedings against her husband. He claimed that after he withdrew from the matter and issued a No Objection Certificate, she grew aggrieved and began filing complaints against him. On May 14, 2025, she approached the police alleging that petitioner, after pressuring her to compromise the dispute, made obscene calls and then sexually assaulted her on three occasions between December 2024 and February 2025. She further alleged that after discovering she was pregnant, petitioner asked her to take medicines to terminate it. This led to registration of Crime No.258/2025 under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the SC/ST Act.

Senior Advocate Anil Khare, with advocate Priyank Agrawal for the petitioner, argued that the FIR was a retaliatory move filed soon after proceedings before the National Commission for Scheduled Castes had found earlier complaints against petitioner unsubstantiated. He relied on the Commission's Action Taken Report and pointed to other cases where the complainant had allegedly obtained monetary compensation by invoking the SC/ST Act, contending she had a pattern of making false complaints.

Government Advocate Mukesh Shukla, for the State, opposed the plea, submitting that the FIR disclosed specific, cognizable offences that could not be tested on writ jurisdiction, and that the victim's statement and medical examination had already been recorded. Advocate Lawkush Mishra, for the complainant, argued that the earlier complaints did not prove the present allegations false and that the investigation ought to run its course.

The court agreed. "The informant has attributed specific acts to the petitioner, has mentioned particular dates and places and has narrated the alleged circumstances preceding and following the incidents," it observed, adding that whether the allegations were true and whether they were corroborated by electronic or medical evidence were "all matters for investigation."

Rejecting the plea that the National Commission for Scheduled Castes proceedings should discredit the FIR, the court noted that "a previous complaint found to be unsubstantiated is not, by itself, proof that every subsequent complaint made by the same person is necessarily false." It also held that the advocate-client relationship between the two did not make the allegations "inherently impossible," since the FIR itself proceeded on the premise that the acts occurred after that professional relationship had ended.

While acknowledging that the petitioner's right to reputation formed part of his right to life under Article 21, the court held this could not translate into "a principle that a person against whom specific cognizable allegations are made must be insulated from investigation merely because he is a professional of standing."

The court also noted an order dated June 4, 2026 by the Inspector General of Police, Rewa Zone, appointing Sub-Divisional Officer Pratima Sharma as inquiry officer to conduct a fresh, fair investigation after the complainant herself sought one. It held this development addressed the plea for an impartial probe, making a separate court-monitored investigation unnecessary.

The court declined to restrain coercive action against the petitioner or impose a blanket gag on media reporting, while directing the investigating officer to proceed fairly and lawfully. The plea seeking action against the complainant and named police officials was also declined, though petitioner was left free to pursue such remedies before the appropriate authority. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.

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

Date of Order: August 24, 2026

Bench: Justice Himanshu Joshi