Madhya Pradesh High Court
Yogesh Sangte vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 January, 2025
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
-1- W.P.No.32730/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 15th OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 32730 of 2024
YOGESH SANGTE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Saloni Ojha - advocate for the petitioner.
Shri S. R. Saxena- Dy. A.G appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
ORDER
1] This petition has been filed by the petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India seeking following relief:-
“(i) That an appropriate Writ/Direction/Order be
passed for against the illegal actions of the
Respondents 1, 2 and 3 being illegal and without
proper procedure followed.
(ii) That, an appropriate Writ/Direction/Order be
passed by quashing the all five FIRs Annexure P/1
initiated by Respondents without any proper cause of
action.
(iii) That, all the original identity documents belonging
to the petitioner be handed/returned back over to the
petitioner.
(iv) That, Any other relief which this Court may deem fit
in favor of petitioner and in interest of justice.”
2] The grievance of the petitioner is that as many as five FIRs have
been lodged against him of the same nature, one FIR at Police Station
Mahakal Thana and other Four FIRs at police station Madhav Nagar,
District Ujjain, within a span of four days only.
3] The grievance of the petitioner is that he is a politician, and the
aforesaid FIRs are filed against him with a mala fide intention of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA SUDHIR
DAS
Signing time: 28-01-2025
17:52:25
-2- W.P.No.32730/2024
maligning his reputation, and he has been intentionally targeted by
the opposition political parties which has led to lodging of the
aforesaid FIRs.
4] In support of her submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon various judgements of the Supreme Court in the case
of S.A.Ventkataraman Vs. Union of India and another reported as
AIR 1954 SC 375, T.T.Atony Vs. State of Kerala passed in Appeal
(Crl.) 689 of 2001 in Special leave petition (Cri.) 1522 of 2000 and
the order passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in
W.P.No.9623/2023 (Suresh Tated Vs. State of M.P. and others) dated
25.8.2023.
5] Counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer, and it
is submitted that no case for interference is made out as only one
petition has been filed for quashing five FIRs in one single writ
petition only, and otherwise also all the FIRs’ have arisen out of
different cause of action whereas the decisions relied upon by counsel
for the petitioner are in respect of the offences of identical nature, and
thus, cannot be relied upon to decide the present case.
6] Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7] From the record, it is apparent that the petitioner is challenging
the quashment of five FIRs only on the ground that all of them are of
similar in nature, and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the
same. In the considered opinion of this Court, an FIR cannot be
quashed simply on the asking of the petitioner, who is alleging his
false implication. The FIR can only be quashed when no prima facie
case is made out against the accused even after accepting the contents
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA SUDHIR
DAS
Signing time: 28-01-2025
17:52:25
-3- W.P.No.32730/2024
of the same to be true, and the petitioner has not pleaded any such
circumstances in which it can be said that no case is made out against
the petitioner even on bare reading of the FIR, and on the contrary it
is found that each FIR has a different cause of action and cannot be
combined in a single writ petition only because four out of five FIRs
have been registered under Section 420 of IPC at Crime
Nos.60/20,62/20, 64/20 and 67/20 at police station Madhav Nagar
whereas one is under Section 153(A) and Section 188 of the IPC
lodged at Crime No.84/2020, at police station Mahakal Thana.
8. In such circumstances, this Court does not find it to be a fit
case to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, and accordingly, the petition being devoid of
merits is hereby dismissed.
9. So far as the judgements relied upon by counsel for the
petitioner is concerned, the same are distinguishable under the facts
and circumstances of the case and are of no avail to the petitioner.
10. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
das
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA SUDHIR
DAS
Signing time: 28-01-2025
17:52:25