The Madhya Pradesh High Court has made a ruling that may bring relief to former state finance minister, Raghavji. The judge quashed a First Information Report (FIR) that was lodged against Raghavji in 2013, which accused him of illegally proposing to his former male domestic help. The complainant had given verbal and written accounts of the alleged activities of Raghavji to the Habibganj police station. The HC passed the ruling on 14 June 2021. The complaint was said to have been made with malicious intent and was filed to belittle Raghavji’s image in society and cast a stigma on his name.
The complainant had made the complaint with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance, the court said, adding that there was evidence the complaint was made after the complainant had been in cahoots with rival party leaders. Therefore, the judge concluded that the prosecution of Raghavji was malicious. The court said that the petitioner’s counsel submitted that the FIR did not state that Raghavji had developed a physical relationship with the complainant without the latter’s approval. Instead, the petition submitted that the complainant himself said that he and another person planned to get videos recorded and create a CD that demonstrated Raghavji was involved in an unnatural sexual act-not just with the complainant but with the other person as well.
The video recording was produced by the complainant but was not admissible for lack of the requisite certificate of Section 65-B of Evidence Act. In his statement, taken by the police, the complainant’s father stated that the complainant’s mental condition was not stable and that he was in the habit of making fallacious allegations against high-ranking officials. This statement is included in the chargesheet.
The ruling was based solely on the grounds that the complaint was malicious in nature and that the offence under Section 377 of IPC was not proven. Raghavji’s counsel, Shashank Shekhar, said that the relief of quashing the FIR was based on the solitary ground that it was malicious, and the offence under Section 377 of IPC was inadequate.
