Court Upholds Investigation into Serious Allegations Despite Claims of Malicious Prosecution
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, on August 24, 2026, delivered a significant judgment concerning the scope of judicial interference in criminal investigations. The court dismissed a writ petition filed by Advocate Pramod Pathak, seeking the quashing of an FIR registered against him under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Presided over by Justice Himanshu Joshi, the court emphasized that the allegations in the FIR disclosed cognizable offences and required thorough investigation. The petitioner, a practicing advocate, was accused by a former client of sexual assault and other offenses. Despite the petitioner's claims of malicious prosecution and a history of the informant lodging false complaints, the court found that the FIR contained specific allegations that warranted investigation.
The court noted that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution could not be invoked to quash the FIR at this stage. It highlighted that disputed factual questions and the credibility of the informant's allegations could not be adjudicated without a full investigation.
Justice Joshi further remarked that the professional standing of the petitioner did not insulate him from investigation into serious allegations. The court also declined to issue a blanket restriction on media disclosure concerning the petitioner's identity, directing compliance with applicable privacy laws and Supreme Court guidelines.
Additionally, the court acknowledged a subsequent administrative order appointing a different officer to ensure a fair investigation, thereby addressing concerns over investigative impartiality.
The petition was ultimately dismissed, with the court clarifying that remedies were available to the petitioner before competent authorities if sufficient material warranted such proceedings.
Bottom Line:
Scope of judicial interference in quashing FIR under Article 226 of the Constitution clarified. Allegations disclosing cognizable offences require investigation, and disputed factual questions cannot be adjudicated at the threshold.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 64, 64(2)(h), 64(2)(m), 70, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Pramod Pathak v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (Madhya Pradesh)(Jabalpur) : Law Finder Doc id # 2973707
