The Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed a criminal case accusing a Central Government employee of molestation and misconduct inside a public bus, holding that the prosecution failed to produce credible evidence supporting the allegations and that continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law.
- Case Title: Pankaj Mishra v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
- Court: High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench
- Bench: Justice Himanshu Joshi
- Date of Judgment: 13 February 2026
- Case Number: Misc. Criminal Case No. 978 of 2026
- Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-JBP:15046
The petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which corresponds to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashment of an FIR registered for offences under Sections 74, 75(1)(i), and 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
Case Background
The case arose from an incident allegedly occurring on 20 February 2025 when the complainant was travelling in a bus from Nagma to Rewa. According to the FIR, the petitioner, Pankaj Mishra, was also travelling in the same bus.
The complainant alleged that during the journey, the petitioner began touching her with his feet. When she objected, he allegedly caught hold of her hand, touched her body inappropriately, abused her verbally, and misbehaved with her. During the alleged altercation, her bangles reportedly broke.
Based on this complaint, the police registered Crime No. 72/2025 at Police Station Baikunthpur, District Rewa, invoking provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita related to outraging modesty and misconduct.
Following registration of the FIR, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the case, arguing that the allegations were false and unsupported by credible evidence.
Petitioner’s Arguments Before the Court
Counsel for the petitioner contended that the case was fabricated and motivated by hostility and political influence. The petitioner, a Central Government employee, argued that he had been falsely implicated and that the investigation conducted by the police was neither fair nor impartial.
The defence further argued that the material collected during investigation failed to disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. According to the petitioner, the allegations were vague and unsupported by reliable independent evidence.
Additionally, the petitioner sought protection under Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which provides certain safeguards to public servants.
However, the primary prayer before the court was the quashing of the FIR itself on the ground that continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to misuse of criminal law.
The State opposed the petition, arguing that the FIR and witness statements recorded during the investigation disclosed the commission of cognizable offences. The prosecution urged the court not to interfere with the investigation at this stage.
Court Examines Evidence from the Investigation
After hearing the parties and examining the FIR and case diary, the High Court carefully scrutinized the material collected during the investigation.
A key factor noted by the court was the setting of the alleged incident. The incident was said to have taken place in a public bus that was heavily crowded.
The court observed that in such a situation, incidental physical contact between passengers is not unusual.
The case diary revealed that the statements of three passengers had been recorded during the investigation. However, the court found a significant gap in the investigative process: the bus driver and conductor had not been examined, even though the FIR specifically mentioned that the conductor had intervened during the alleged incident.
The court regarded this omission as a serious flaw.
The judgment noted that when independent witnesses who were present at the scene are available, their statements become crucial for determining the credibility of allegations.
Failure to record the statements of such witnesses creates doubt about the prosecution version.
Absence of Medical Evidence
Another critical factor considered by the court was the medical examination report of the complainant.
The complainant had alleged that the petitioner forcibly held her hand, causing her bangles to break during the incident.
However, the medical report revealed no injury, abrasion, swelling, redness, or even superficial marks on the complainant’s wrist or hand.
The court observed that if sufficient force had been used to break bangles during a physical scuffle, some corresponding sign of impact would ordinarily be expected.
The judgment explained:
“Ordinarily, if sufficient force had been applied so as to cause breakage of bangles during a physical scuffle, some corresponding sign of impact or trauma would reasonably be expected to be present.”
While acknowledging that not every allegation of assault necessarily results in visible injuries, the court held that the complete absence of medical corroboration weakened the prosecution case.
According to the court, this inconsistency between the narrative of forceful physical contact and the medical findings raised doubts about the credibility of the allegations.
Lack of Independent Corroboration
The High Court also examined whether the allegations were supported by independent evidence.
After reviewing the material in the case diary, the court concluded that no specific or consistent allegations supported by independent evidence were available to establish the offences alleged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The allegations appeared general in nature and lacked corroboration, particularly considering the circumstances of a crowded public bus where accidental contact between passengers may occur.
Thus, the court held that the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 74, 75(1)(i), and 296 BNS were not prima facie established based on the evidence collected.
Protection Under Section 218 BNSS Rejected
The petitioner had also argued that he was entitled to protection under Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which provides safeguards to public servants for acts done in discharge of official duty.
The High Court rejected this argument.
Justice Himanshu Joshi clarified that the alleged acts, even if assumed to be true, were not connected to the discharge of official duty.
Therefore, the statutory protection available to public servants under Section 218 BNSS could not be invoked in this case.
However, the court emphasized that even without considering this protection, the prosecution material itself was insufficient to justify continuation of the criminal proceedings.
Court Warns Against Misuse of Criminal Law
One of the most significant aspects of the judgment was the court’s broader observation on the misuse of criminal provisions intended to protect women.
The court cautioned against invoking serious penal provisions in situations lacking substantive evidence.
Justice Joshi observed that criminal law protecting the dignity and bodily autonomy of women is a “solemn legislative trust” meant to address genuine grievances and deter real wrongdoing.
The court remarked:
“Criminal law, particularly provisions designed to safeguard the dignity and bodily autonomy of women, is a solemn legislative trust meant to redress genuine grievances and deter real transgressions; it is not intended to be wielded as a weapon to settle scores.”
The judgment further emphasized that when serious allegations are made without adequate foundation, the consequences can be severe for the accused.
The court warned that such allegations may cause irreparable damage to reputation, career, and personal dignity, even if the accused is ultimately acquitted.
It noted that misuse of criminal law also undermines public confidence in the justice system and dilutes the purpose of laws meant to protect vulnerable individuals.
Exercise of Inherent Powers Under BNSS
The High Court reiterated the scope of its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
These powers are meant to ensure that the process of law is not abused and that justice is served.
The court concluded that in the present case, the evidence collected during investigation did not disclose the commission of the alleged offences.
Continuing the criminal proceedings in such circumstances would therefore constitute an abuse of the process of law.
Final Decision of the Court
Allowing the petition, the Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed the FIR registered against the petitioner.
The court ordered:
- The FIR in Crime No. 72/2025 registered at Police Station Baikunthpur, District Rewa under Sections 74, 75(1)(i), and 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is quashed.
- All consequential proceedings arising from the FIR are also set aside.
- No order was passed regarding costs.
With this ruling, the High Court brought the criminal proceedings against the petitioner to an end.
Follow Mahamana News For More Recent Judgments
