Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nilesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 April, 2026
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12415
1 MCRC-55845-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 6 th OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 55845 of 2025
NILESH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Sudeel Yadav - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Hemant Sharma -Govt. Adv. appearing on behalf of Advocate
General.
ORDER
1] This This petition has been filed by the petitioner under section
528 of BNSS for quashing the FIR lodged at crime no. 151 of 2022 at police
station Tilak Nagar, Indore under Sections 376, 376(2)(N), 294, 506, 380,
411, 201 of the IPC.
2] The allegations against the petitioner is of rape on the pretext of
marriage and also of theft of gold ornament from the house of the
prosecutrix.
3] The FIR in the present case was lodged on 14.5.2022 by the
prosecutrix, alleging that she had met with an accident in the year 2004,
because of which her right hand was not working properly, and in the year
2020-2021, she met with the petitioner Dr.Swapnil Jain, who claims himself
to be a physiotherapist and assured her that he would cure her hand
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MONI RAJU
Signing time: 02-05-
2026 16:40:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12415
2 MCRC-55845-2025
completely and started coming to the prosecutrix’s home for physiotherapy.
During this period, they grew close together and the prisoner also proposed
the prosecutrix, and called her to his home on 22nd of September, 2021 to
celebrate his birthday, where he got intimate with him on the pretext of
marriage and subsequently, when the petitioner went to the house of the
complainant prosecutrix, he also stole a gold necklace with Sapphire which
belonged to the prosecutrix’s mother. However, when the prosecutrix still
insisted to the petitioner to marry her, he refused and the petitioner and the
prosecutrix also came to know that the petitioner was already married, and is
a father of a girl which led the proscutrix to lodge the FIR as a forced said.
4] Shri Sudeel Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case as admittedly the
prosecutrix was a consenting party, and only with a view to take advantage
of her position of a woman, she has lodged a false case against the petitioner,
in which an offense of theft has also been alleged against him. Counsel has
submitted that that it is true that an invoice of Vaibhav Shree Jewellers,
Sarafa has also been seized by the police, but that itself is not sufficient to
hold that the petitioner had stolen the article from the prosecutor’s home.
Thus, it is submitted that the petition deserves to be allowed as a frivolous
case has been lodged against the petitioner.
5] Counsel for the State has opposed prayer.
6] Head. Having considered all submission, perusal of the document
filed on the court. it is found that the petitioner has not even made the
prosecutrix as a party respondent despite the fact that he was the aggrieved
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MONI RAJU
Signing time: 02-05-
2026 16:40:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12415
3 MCRC-55845-2025
party. Apart from that, considering the fact that during the course of
investigation, an invoice of the jeweler has also been seized from the
position of the petitioner, which only substantiates the allegations made by
the prosecutrix, this court is of the considered opinion that this is not a case
where the inherent powers of this court under section 482/528 of BNSS can
be exercised.
7] Accordingly, petition being devoid of merit and misconceived is
hereby dismissed.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
moni
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MONI RAJU
Signing time: 02-05-
2026 16:40:14
