Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes “False and Malicious” POCSO FIR; Directs Action Against Complainant Under POCSO Section 22, BNS Sections 240 & 248
Jabalpur | September 8, 2025
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has quashed an FIR registered against a Senior Advocate under Section 65(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 5 & 6 of the POCSO Act, holding that continuation of the prosecution would amount to malicious prosecution and abuse of the process of law.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Vishal Mishra in Prakash Upadhyay v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, Writ Petition No. 20604 of 2025.
Neutral Citation: 2025:MPHC-JBP:44212
FIR Quashed After Investigation Found Allegations False and Frivolous
The petitioner, a Senior Advocate practising before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, was implicated in Crime No. 255/2025, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Rewa.
The case record revealed that the complainant had previously made serious allegations against different persons. In some of those matters, the allegations were found to be false after investigation, while in one matter the Special Court reportedly found the case to be fabricated.
The judgment also took note of an earlier complaint made against the petitioner, which had been investigated by the police and found to be frivolous. The police report in that matter remained unchallenged.
Investigation Did Not Support the Prosecution Case
During investigation of the present FIR, the authorities examined the available material, including medical evidence, statements, CCTV footage and other relevant material.
The investigation did not disclose sufficient material connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence.
The police ultimately submitted a closure report before the competent Trial Court, finding the allegations to be false and frivolous.
Against this background, the High Court examined whether continuation of the criminal proceedings could be permitted.
High Court Exercises Article 226 Jurisdiction
The principal issue before the Court was whether the High Court could exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings where the investigation itself indicated that the allegations were false and continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of process.
The Court answered the issue in favour of the petitioner.
Considering the material on record, the previous complaints, the investigation and the closure report, the High Court held that the prosecution against the petitioner could not be permitted to continue.
The Court characterised the proceedings as “malicious prosecution” and an “abuse of the process of law.”
“Could Not Be Permitted to Continue Even for a Minute”
The High Court proceeded to quash Crime No. 255/2025 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Rewa, along with all subsequent proceedings arising from the said FIR.
The Court observed that the prosecution could not be permitted to continue “even for a minute”, as it amounted to malicious prosecution.
The finding assumes particular significance because the case involved serious allegations under the POCSO Act and the Court nevertheless examined the actual material collected during investigation before permitting the prosecution to proceed.
Supreme Court Precedents Considered by the High Court
While exercising its jurisdiction, the High Court relied upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court concerning prevention of abuse of criminal proceedings.
1. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335
The Court relied upon the leading judgment laying down the principles and circumstances in which criminal proceedings can be quashed by the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law.
2. Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra
(2021) 19 SCC 401
The Supreme Court judgment contains important principles concerning interference with investigation and quashing of FIRs, while recognising the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court in appropriate cases.
3. Haji Iqbal @ Bala v. State of U.P.
2023 Supreme (SC) 693
The judgment recognises that where criminal proceedings appear to be frivolous, vexatious or motivated by an ulterior purpose, the High Court can examine the FIR and surrounding circumstances to prevent abuse of process.
4. Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat
(2011) 7 SCC 59
The Supreme Court held that filing of a charge-sheet does not by itself take away the High Court’s power to examine whether the allegations and material disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences.
Court Directs Action Against Complainant
The judgment did not stop at quashing the FIR.
The High Court specifically considered the applicability of:
- Section 22(1), POCSO Act
- Section 240, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
- Section 248, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
in the context of the allegedly false and frivolous complaint.
The Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Rewa, to take immediate action against the complainant in accordance with law, keeping in view the aforesaid statutory provisions.
POCSO Section 22(1): False Complaint
Section 22(1) of the POCSO Act deals with knowingly making a false complaint or providing false information concerning offences under Sections 3, 5, 7 or 9 of the Act, where the statutory conditions are satisfied.
The provision prescribes punishment of imprisonment up to six months, or fine, or both.
BNS Section 240: Giving False Information
Section 240 of the BNS, 2023 concerns giving false information regarding an offence.
Where a person, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, gives information concerning that offence which he knows or believes to be false, the provision prescribes imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both.
BNS Section 248: False Charge With Intent to Injure
Section 248 of the BNS, 2023 deals with instituting or causing to be instituted criminal proceedings, or falsely charging a person with an offence, with intent to cause injury, where the person knows that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge.
The provision provides for:
Ordinary cases: imprisonment up to five years, or fine up to ₹2 lakh, or both.
Where the false charge relates to an offence punishable with death, life imprisonment or imprisonment of ten years or more: imprisonment up to ten years, along with fine.
Safeguard Ordered for Future Complaints
The High Court also issued a significant direction concerning any future complaint by the complainant.
It directed that if any similar complaint is made by the complainant in future, a preliminary enquiry should be conducted before taking any coercive action.
The Court clarified that this direction was issued considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the complainant’s history of making false and frivolous complaints.
Thus, the direction was not framed as a general requirement applicable to every POCSO complaint, but arose from the particular circumstances considered by the Court.
Legal Ratio
The judgment underscores that where an investigation establishes that serious criminal allegations are false and unsupported by material, and continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to malicious prosecution and abuse of the process of law, the High Court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings.
The decision further demonstrates that, in an appropriate case involving an allegedly false POCSO complaint, the Court may direct the competent authorities to consider action under Section 22 of the POCSO Act and Sections 240 and 248 of the BNS, subject to the statutory requirements of those provisions.
Why the Judgment Matters
The ruling may be relevant in cases where:
- a serious FIR has been registered but the investigation does not substantiate the allegations;
- the police have submitted a closure report;
- there are material contradictions between the allegations and investigation material;
- the complainant has a documented history of similar false or frivolous complaints;
- the criminal proceedings appear to have been initiated with an ulterior motive, harassment, blackmail or personal vendetta; or
- continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
However, the judgment should be applied on the basis of its specific facts and findings. The mere registration of a false FIR allegation, by itself, does not automatically justify quashing; the High Court examines the FIR, investigation material and surrounding circumstances within the established legal parameters.
One-Line Takeaway
“A false and malicious POCSO FIR cannot be allowed to continue merely because it has been registered; where investigation shows the allegations to be baseless and continuation of prosecution amounts to abuse of process, the High Court can quash the FIR and may direct action against the complainant under POCSO Section 22 and BNS Sections 240 & 248.”
