Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravindra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 April, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7665
1 M.Cr.C. No.5402 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 2nd OF APRIL, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 5402 of 2025
RAVINDRA SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Kumar Shukla - Advocate for applicants.
Shri Mohit Shivhare - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
ORDER
This application, under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023, has been filed for
quashment of FIR in Crime No.833/2024 registered at Police Station Kotwali,
District Bhind (M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471
and 120B of IPC.
2. Facts necessary for disposal of present application, in short, are that
complainant respondent No.2 filed a written complaint alleging that applicant
No.2-Randeep Singh in conspiracy with applicant No.1- Ravindra Singh
fabricated a false document to get his son Mikku alias Vishal Bhadoriya declared
as minor. On the basis of complaint, preliminary enquiry was conducted and
thereafter, FIR in question has been registered. According to complainant, his
elder son Pranam Jain was shot dead on 08.03.2024 by Mikku alias Vishal
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 4/7/2025
8:19:55 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7665
2 M.Cr.C. No.5402 of 2025
Bhadoriya and Bhola Bhadoriya. Mikku alias Vishal Bhadoriya and Bhola
Bhadoriya were arrested. During police interrogation, Mikku alias Vishal
Bhadoriya stated his age as 19 years. Accordingly, he was produced before the
regular court, however, in the Court Mikku alias Vishal Bhadoriya along with his
father Randeep Singh (applicant No.2) and uncle Ravindra Singh (applicant No.1)
conspired to mislead the court by presenting forged documents relating to his age
and claimed that the date of birth of Mikku alias Vishal Bhadoriya is 02.07.2006
and it was prayed that he may be declared as juvenile. Accordingly, the Trial
Court directed that Mikku alias Vishal Bhadoriya be produced before Juvenile
Justice Board. Upon learning of this manipulation, complainant collected the
record relating to correct date of birth of Mikku alias Vishal Bhadoriya. The date
of birth of Mikku alias Vishal Bhadoriya in the admission register of Government
Integrated Middle School, Vindwa, was mentioned as 08.06.2005. In his Aadhar
Card his date of birth was 08.05.2000. In the voter list of Gram Panchayat
Vindwa, Ward No.6, age of Mikku alias Vishal Bhadoriya was mentioned as 22
years. In Aanganwadi Centre, Daruran Ka Pura, date of birth of Mikku alias
Vishal Bhadoriya was mentioned as 07.07.2003. All these documents confirmed
that Mikku alias Vishal Bhadoriya was adult and with an intention to avoid
severe punishment, applicants conspired to prepare the forged school record at Jai
Gurudev Primary/Middle School, Vindwa and fraudulently changed his date of
birth to 02.07.2006. They also falsified the admission Entry No.355 dated
22.06.2011 whereas as per the District Education Officer, Bhind, Jai Gurudev
Primary/Middle School, Vindwa was granted recognition from 26.07.2011 to
31.03.2013 for running school up to 08th. Thus, it was claimed that on 22.06.2011
when Mikku alias Vishal Bhadoriya was shown to have been admitted, school
was not in existence. Accordingly, respondent No.2 prayed for registration of FIR
against applicants for fraudulently manipulating multiple age related documents
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 4/7/2025
8:19:55 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7665
3 M.Cr.C. No.5402 of 2025
to falsely declare that Mikku alias Vishal Bhadoriya was minor on the date of
incident.
3. During the course of arguments, it was submitted by counsel for applicants
that ultimately after multiple rounds of litigations, Mikku alias Vishal Bhadoriya
has been declared as adult on the date of incident. It is submitted that although
High Court in Criminal Revision No.3522/2024 has dismissed the revision filed
by Mikku alias Vishal Bhadoriya and has upheld the directions of VII Additional
Sessions Judge, Bhind (M.P.) to enquire into the matter for determining the age of
Mikku alias Vishal Bhadoriya, still police has registered the FIR.
4. It is further submitted that in the impugned FIR except mentioning that the
documents were forged in conspiracy with applicants, there is no other allegation
to necessitate the registration of FIR or investigation against applicants.
5. Heard learned counsel for applicants.
6. Undisputedly, the investigation is pending. It is well settled principle of law
that the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should not
stifle the legitimate prosecution and should not kill the unborn child and should
not stop collection of material against the accused.
7. The Supreme Court in the case of Munshiram v. State of Rajasthan,
reported in (2018) 5 SCC 678 has held as under :
10. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and
perusing the material available on record we are of the opinion
that the High Court has prematurely quashed the FIR without
proper investigation being conducted by the police. Further, it is
no more res integra that Section 482 CrPC has to be utilised
cautiously while quashing the FIR. This Court in a catena of cases
has quashed FIR only after it comes to a conclusion that
continuing investigation in such cases would only amount to
abuse of the process. …….
8. The Supreme Court in the case of Teeja Devi v. State of Rajasthan
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 4/7/2025
8:19:55 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7665
4 M.Cr.C. No.5402 of 2025
reported in (2014) 15 SCC 221 has held as under :
5. It has been rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant that ordinarily power under Section 482 CrPC should
not be used to quash an FIR because that amounts to interfering
with the statutory power of the police to investigate a cognizable
offence in accordance with the provisions of CrPC. As per law
settled by a catena of judgments, if the allegations made in the
FIR prima facie disclose a cognizable offence, interference with
the investigation is not proper and it can be done only in the rarest
of rare cases where the court is satisfied that the prosecution is
malicious and vexatious.
9. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Ujjal Kumar
Burdhan, reported in (2012) 4 SCC 547 has held as under :
9. In State of W.B. v. Swapan Kumar Guha, emphasising that
the Court will not normally interfere with an investigation and
will permit the inquiry into the alleged offence, to be completed,
this Court highlighted the necessity of a proper investigation
observing thus: (SCC pp. 597-98, paras 65-66)
“65. … An investigation is carried on for the purpose
of gathering necessary materials for establishing and
proving an offence which is disclosed. When an
offence is disclosed, a proper investigation in the
interests of justice becomes necessary to collect
materials for establishing the offence, and for
bringing the offender to book. In the absence of a
proper investigation in a case where an offence is
disclosed, the offender may succeed in escaping from
the consequences and the offender may go unpunished
to the detriment of the cause of justice and the society
at large. Justice requires that a person who commits an
offence has to be brought to book and must be
punished for the same. If the court interferes with the
proper investigation in a case where an offence has
been disclosed, the offence will go unpunished to the
serious detriment of the welfare of the society and the
cause of the justice suffers. It is on the basis of this
principle that the court normally does not interfere
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 4/7/2025
8:19:55 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:76655 M.Cr.C. No.5402 of 2025
with the investigation of a case where an offence has
been disclosed. …
66. Whether an offence has been disclosed or not must
necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of
each particular case. … If on a consideration of the
relevant materials, the court is satisfied that an
offence is disclosed, the court will normally not
interfere with the investigation into the offence and
will generally allow the investigation into the offence
to be completed for collecting materials for proving
the offence.” (emphasis supplied)
10. On a similar issue under consideration, in Jeffrey J.
Diermeier v. State of W.B., while explaining the scope and ambit
of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the
Code, one of us (D.K. Jain, J.) speaking for the Bench, has
observed as follows: (SCC p. 251, para 20)
“20. … The section itself envisages three
circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction
may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an
order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the
process of court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends
of justice. Nevertheless, it is neither possible nor
desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would
govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the
court. Undoubtedly, the power possessed by the High
Court under the said provision is very wide but it is
not unlimited. It has to be exercised sparingly,
carefully and cautiously, ex debito justitiae to do real
and substantial justice for which alone the court
exists. It needs little emphasis that the inherent
jurisdiction does not confer an arbitrary power on the
High Court to act according to whim or caprice. The
power exists to prevent abuse of authority and not to
produce injustice.”
10. The Supreme Court in the case of XYZ v. State of Gujarat reported in
(2019) 10 SCC 337 has held as under :
14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 4/7/2025
8:19:55 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:76656 M.Cr.C. No.5402 of 2025
perusing the impugned order and other material placed on record,
we are of the view that the High Court exceeded the scope of its
jurisdiction conferred under Section 482 CrPC, and quashed the
proceedings. Even before the investigation is completed by the
investigating agency, the High Court entertained the writ petition,
and by virtue of interim order granted by the High Court, further
investigation was stalled. Having regard to the allegations made
by the appellant/informant, whether the 2nd respondent by
clicking inappropriate pictures of the appellant has blackmailed
her or not, and further the 2nd respondent has continued to
interfere by calling Shoukin Malik or not are the matters for
investigation. In view of the serious allegations made in the
complaint, we are of the view that the High Court should not have
made a roving inquiry while considering the application filed
under Section 482 CrPC. Though the learned counsel have made
elaborate submissions on various contentious issues, as we are of
the view that any observation or findings by this Court, will affect
the investigation and trial, we refrain from recording any findings
on such issues. From a perusal of the order of the High Court, it is
evident that the High Court has got carried away by the
agreement/settlement arrived at, between the parties, and
recorded a finding that the physical relationship of the appellant
with the 2nd respondent was consensual. When it is the allegation
of the appellant, that such document itself is obtained under threat
and coercion, it is a matter to be investigated. Further, the
complaint of the appellant about interference by the 2nd
respondent by calling Shoukin Malik and further interference is
also a matter for investigation. By looking at the contents of the
complaint and the serious allegations made against 2nd
respondent, we are of the view that the High Court has committed
error in quashing the proceedings.
(Underline supplied)
11. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. S. Martin &
Ors. reported in (2018) 5 SCC 718 has held as under:-
“7. In our view the assessment made by the High Court at a stage
when the investigation was yet to be completed, is completely
incorrect and uncalled for ………..”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 4/7/2025
8:19:55 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7665
7 M.Cr.C. No.5402 of 2025
12. The Supreme Court in the case of S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal reported
in (2010) 5 SCC 600 has held as under :
17. In the past, this Court has even laid down some guidelines for
the exercise of inherent power by the High Courts to quash
criminal proceedings in such exceptional cases. We can refer to
the decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to take note of two
such guidelines which are relevant for the present case: (SCC pp.
378-79, para 102)
“(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or
the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused.
* * *
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala
fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a
view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
18. It is of course a settled legal proposition that in a case where
there is sufficient evidence against the accused, which may
establish the charge against him/her, the proceedings cannot be
quashed. In Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological
E. Ltd. this Court observed that a criminal complaint or a charge-
sheet can only be quashed by superior courts in exceptional
circumstances, such as when the allegations in a complaint do not
support a prima facie case for an offence.
19. Similarly, in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd.
Sharaful Haque this Court has held that criminal proceedings can
be quashed but such a power is to be exercised sparingly and only
when such an exercise is justified by the tests that have been
specifically laid down in the statutory provisions themselves. It
was further observed that superior courts “may examine the
questions of fact” when the use of the criminal law machinery
could be in the nature of an abuse of authority or when it could
result in injustice.
20. In Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala this Court relied on
earlier precedents to clarify that a High Court while exercising its
inherent jurisdiction should not interfere with a genuine
complaint but it should certainly not hesitate to intervene in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 4/7/2025
8:19:55 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7665
8 M.Cr.C. No.5402 of 2025
appropriate cases. In fact it was observed: (SCC pp. 478, para 25)
“25. … ’16. … One of the paramount duties of the superior courts
is to see that a person who is apparently innocent is not subjected
to persecution and humiliation on the basis of a false and wholly
untenable complaint.”
13. The Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Das v. State of
Jharkhand, reported in (2011) 12 SCC 319 has held as under :
12. The counsel appearing for the appellant also drew our
attention to the same decision which is relied upon in the
impugned judgment by the High Court i.e. State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal. In the said decision, this Court held that it may not
be possible to lay down any specific guidelines or watertight
compartment as to when the power under Section 482 CrPC
could be or is to be exercised. This Court, however, gave an
exhaustive list of various kinds of cases wherein such power
could be exercised. In para 103 of the said judgment, this Court,
however, hastened to add that as a note of caution it must be
stated that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be
exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in
the rarest of rare cases for the Court would not be justified in
embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made in the first information report
or in the complaint and that the extraordinary or the inherent
powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act
according to its whim or caprice.
14. The Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Akram Siddiqui v. State of
Bihar reported in (2019) 13 SCC 350 has held as under :
5. Ordinarily and in the normal course, the High Court when
approached for quashing of a criminal proceeding will not
appreciate the defence of the accused; neither would it consider
the veracity of the document(s) on which the accused relies.
However an exception has been carved out by this Court in Yin
Cheng Hsiung v. Essem Chemical Industries; State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal and Harshendra Kumar D. v. Rebatilata Koley to the
effect that in an appropriate case where the document relied upon
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 4/7/2025
8:19:55 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7665
9 M.Cr.C. No.5402 of 2025
is a public document or where veracity thereof is not disputed by
the complainant, the same can be considered.
15. The Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. v. Gourishetty Mahesh
reported in (2010) 11 SCC 226 has held as under :
18. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code,
the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry
whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a
reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained.
That is the function of the trial Judge/Court. It is true that the
Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising
discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances
into consideration before issuing process, otherwise, it would be
an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash
vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time,
Section 482 is not an instrument handed over to an accused to
short-circuit a prosecution and brings about its closure without
full-fledged enquiry.
19. Though the High Court may exercise its power relating to
cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice, the power should be
exercised sparingly. For example, where the allegations made in
the FIR or complaint, even if they are taken at their face value
and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused or allegations in
the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence or do not disclose
commission of any offence and make out a case against the
accused or where there is express legal bar provided in any of the
provisions of the Code or in any other enactment under which a
criminal proceeding is initiated or sufficient material to show that
the criminal proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused due to private and
personal grudge, the High Court may step in.
20. Though the powers possessed by the High Court under
Section 482 are wide, however, such power requires care/caution
in its exercise. The interference must be on sound principles and
the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate
prosecution. We make it clear that if the allegations set out in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 4/7/2025
8:19:55 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7665
10 M.Cr.C. No.5402 of 2025
complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has
been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to
quash the same in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482.
16. The Supreme Court in the case of CBI v. Arvind Khanna reported in
(2019) 10 SCC 686 has held as under :
17. After perusing the impugned order and on hearing the
submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel on both
sides, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by
the High Court is not sustainable. In a petition filed under
Section 482 CrPC, the High Court has recorded findings on
several disputed facts and allowed the petition. Defence of the
accused is to be tested after appreciating the evidence during
trial. The very fact that the High Court, in this case, went into
the most minute details, on the allegations made by the
appellant CBI, and the defence put forth by the respondent, led
us to a conclusion that the High Court has exceeded its power,
while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
CrPC.
18. In our view, the assessment made by the High Court at
this stage, when the matter has been taken cognizance of by
the competent court, is completely incorrect and uncalled
for.”
17. The allegations in the present case are serious. Son of complainant was shot
dead and according to FIR an attempt has been made to forge the documents and
create concocted and false documents to claim that Mikku alias Vishal Bhadoriya
was minor at the time of incident. This was done with the solitary intention to
avoid severe punishment as well as to avoid the disqualification attached to the
conviction. It was also an attempt to play fraud on the Court. Under these
circumstances, the Police cannot be stopped from collecting evidence. A
legitimate investigation cannot be stifled in the mid way.
18. Therefore, this Court is of considered opinion that no case is made out
warranting quashment of investigation.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 4/7/2025
8:19:55 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7665
11 M.Cr.C. No.5402 of 2025
19. Accordingly, application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
pd
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 4/7/2025
8:19:55 AM