Madhya Pradesh High Court: In an application filed, by an advocate, under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) seeking quashment of FIR registered against him under Section 376(2)(n) of Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), a single-judge bench of G. S. Ahluwalia, J., dismissed the application as the misuse of a professional relationship by an advocate to exploit his client under coercion is a serious offense that cannot be ignored.
In the instant matter, the prosecutrix, a labourer by profession, lodged a complaint alleging that the applicant, who was her legal counsel in a pending divorce case, had sexually exploited her under coercion and false assurances. The prosecutrix alleged that the applicant approached her on 15-03-2022 and stated that her divorce case had no legal standing but assured her victory in exchange for compliance with his instructions. Under this pretext, he established physical relations with her and allegedly continued to exploit her, threatening that if she refused, he would ensure her defeat in court and tarnish her reputation in society.
The applicant contended that the prosecutrix had recorded a subsequent statement under Section 164 CrPC, where she did not support the allegations of rape. Instead, she stated that a dispute over the advocate’s fees had arisen on 12-04-2024, leading to police intervention, after which she was taken to the hospital, where her signatures were allegedly obtained under duress. The prosecutrix explicitly denied rape allegations in her statement under Section 164 CrPC, stating that the applicant had only threatened her regarding his fees but had not committed any sexual offence. Given these circumstances, the applicant argued that the allegations of rape were false, and even if the alleged acts had occurred, they were consensual.
However, the State vehemently opposed the quashing of the FIR and asserted that the allegations in the FIR clearly indicated that the applicant had used his position of trust and authority to coerce the prosecutrix into a non-consensual relationship. It was contended that the subsequent statement under Section 164 CrPC could not override the FIR and the statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC.
The Court noted that the prosecutrix was undergoing divorce proceedings at the time of the alleged incidents and was represented by the applicant in the case. The Court noted that the applicant allegedly assured her of a favorable outcome in court in exchange for compliance with his demands.
The Court noted that the prosecutrix explicitly stated that her consent was obtained under coercion, which negates free consent as per law. The Court emphasised that the applicant, being an advocate, was in a position of trust, which he allegedly misused for sexual exploitation.
The Court the held that prosecutrix statement under Section 164 CrPC cannot override the FIR and the prosecutrix’s earlier statements under Section 161 CrPC. The Court clarified that statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC are meant for omission and contradiction analysis and cannot be the sole basis for quashing the FIR.
Considering the facts and the nature of allegations, that “applicant, who is an Advocate by profession, has allegedly misused his professional relationship with the prosecutrix and committed rape on her by extending threats that he would otherwise ensure that the case is lost by her”, the Court held that no case was made out for quashing the FIR or the criminal proceedings and dismissed the application.
[Munshilal Dhakad v. State of M.P., Misc. Criminal Case No. 23671 of 2024, Decided on 04-03-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Shri Trishant Mishra, Counsel for the Petitioners
Dr. Anjali Gyanani, Public Prosecutor, Counsel for the Respondent/State
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
