Madhya Pradesh High Court
Haribabu Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13628
1 MCRC-29143-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 4 th OF JULY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 29143 of 2025
HARIBABU SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri V. S. Chauhan - Cousnel for the petitioners.
Shri Saket Udeniya - Public Prosecutor for the State.
ORDER
The petitioners have moved the instant petition under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. read with Section 528 of BNSS for quashment of the F.I.R. bearing
Crime No.124/2025 registered at Police Station Raun, District Bhind for
commission of offence under Sections 323, 341, 294, 326, 34, 307, 506 of
IPC.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the F.I.R.
has been registered on 13.05.2025 whereas, the BNSS, 2023 has come into
force with effect from 01.07.2024 and therefore, the offences under the
provision of IPC could not have been registered. Counsel for the petitioners
further submits that the applicant No.1 Haribabu is 70 years of age whereas,
the petitioner No.4 Smt. Bhanumati is 65 years of age and the incident is
reported to have been committed at night. As per the usual practice, villagers
go to sleep at about 07:00 pm and therefore, the entire story is concocted.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 16-07-2025
19:17:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13628
2 MCRC-29143-2025
The counsel for the petitioners further submits that as per the material
available on record, no offence under Section 307 of IPC could have been
said to be made out and it is the case of false implication. He further submits
that due to party dispute in the village, the offence in question has been
registered. Without conducting proper inquiry and without verification of the
facts, the F.I.R. in question has been registered. In support of his contention,
the counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia and Others Vs.
State of Punjab and Others, reported in 2009 (3) SCC (Cri) 620 and
accordingly, counsel for the petitioners prays for the quashment of the F.I.R.
in question.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes
the instant petition and submits that the law on the issue is fairly well settled.
If the F.I.R. can be quashed only on the ground if the allegations made in the
F.I.R. are admitted in toto then also no offence is said to have been made out.
The grounds on which the quashment of F.I.R. is sought may be defence of
the petitioners which are required to be proved in the trial and the same are
not open for consideration at this stage in the proceedings under Section 482
of Cr.P.C./528 BNSS. That apart, he submits that the perusal of the F.I.R.
would reveal that the same has been registered pursuant to the order passed
by the JMFC in a complaint case filed under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. and
the incident is of 05.11.2023 on which date IPC was enforced.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. The records of the case reveal that the F.I.R. in question has been
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 16-07-2025
19:17:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13628
3 MCRC-29143-2025
registered pursuant to the order dated 13.05.2025 passed by the JMFC,
Lahar, District Bhind (M.P.) in the complaint case filed by Pushpraj Singh
(complainant) under Section 153 (6) of Cr.P.C.. Learned JMFC while
passing the order dated 13.05.2025 has recorded prima facie satisfaction that
the complaint filed under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. discloses commission of
cognizable offence and the matter requires further investigation.
6. There is nothing on record to suggest that the aforesaid order dated
13.05.2025 passed by JFMC, Lahar, District Bhind has been challenged any
further. In view of the above, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia and Others (supra ) may not be
applicable in the given facts and circumstances of the case.
7. Moreover, it is fairly well settled principle of law that 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 ………..”
8. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 16-07-2025
19:17:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13628
4 MCRC-29143-2025
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.
9. 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
is a public document or where veracity thereof is not disputed by
the complainant, the same can be considered.
10. 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 theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 16-07-2025
19:17:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:136285 MCRC-29143-2025
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
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.”
11. The Supreme Court in the case of M. Srikanth v. State of
Telangana, reported in (2019) 10 SCC 373 has held as under :-
“17. It could thus be seen, that this Court has held, that where the
allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are
taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not
prima facie constitute a case against the accused, the High Court
would be justified in quashing the proceedings. Further, it has
been held that where the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR
and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose
any offence and make out a case against the accused, the Court
would be justified in quashing the proceedings.”
12. 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
factthat 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 16-07-2025
19:17:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:136286 MCRC-29143-2025
stage, when the matter has been taken cognizance of by the
competent court, is completely incorrect and uncalled for.”
13. Further, the Supreme Court in the case of State of MP Vs. Kunwar
Singh by order dated 30.06.2021 passed in Cr.A. No.709/2021 has held that a
detailed and meticulous appreciation of evidence at the stage of 482 of CrPC
is not permissible and should not be done. In the case of Kunwar Singh
(supra), the Supreme Court held as under:-
“8……..At this stage, the High Court ought not to be scrutinizing
the material in the manner in which the trial court would do in
the course of the criminal trial after evidence is adduced. In
doing so, the High Court has exceeded the well-settled limits on
the exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC. A
detailed enquiry into the merits of the allegations was not
warranted. The FIR is not expected to be an
encyclopedia………..”
14. Similar law has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases
o f Munshiram v. State of Rajasthan , reported in (2018) 5 SCC 678 , Teeja
Devi v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2014) 15 SCC 221 , State of Orissa v.
Ujjal Kumar Burdhan, reported in (2012) 4 SCC 547 , S. Khushboo v.
Kanniammal reported in (2010) 5 SCC 600 , Sangeeta Agrawal v. State of
U.P., reported in (2019) 2 SCC 336 , Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander
reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 , Padal Venkata Rama Reddy Vs. Kovuri
Satyanarayana Reddy reported in (2012) 12 SCC 437 , M.N. Ojha v. Alok
Kumar Srivastav reported in (2009) 9 SCC 682 .
15. Thus, it is clear that this Court can quash the proceedings only if
the uncontroverted allegations do not make out a prima facie offence. This
Court cannot look into the defense of the accused persons. The correctness of
the allegations cannot be taken into consideration.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 16-07-2025
19:17:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13628
7 MCRC-29143-2025
16. In so far as the contention of the petitioners is that the F.I.R. in
question could not have been registered under the provisions of BNSS for
the offences alleged under the provisions of IPC, the said grounds may be of
no relevance, as Sections 358 (2) of BNS 2023, read with Section 531 (2) of
Nagrik Surksha Sanhita 2023, which are repeal and saving clauses, clarify
that the offence is alleged to be committed prior to the enforcement of BNS,
2023, then action/inquiry suffered are saved. In the case in hand, as per the
complaint, the date of incident is 05.11.2023 whereas, the new act has been
enforced with effect from 01.07.2024 and therefore, the aforesaid ground
raised by the petitioners being baseless and misconceived is hereby rejected.
So far as the merits of defence of petitioners are concerned, it would be open
for the petitioners to submit their defense before the learned trial Court at
appropriate stage, which would be open for consideration by the learned trial
Court in accordance with law and all questions in this regard are kept open.
17. In view of the above, the instant petition stands dismissed.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
AK/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 16-07-2025
19:17:56
[ad_1]
Source link