Madhya Pradesh High Court
Paras Vaish vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 July, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Vivek Rusia, Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:18868
1
M.Cr.C.No.30115 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 21st OF JULY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No.30115 of 2025
PARAS VAISH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
.............................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Shashank Shekhar Dugwekar - Senior Advocate with Shri
Jerry Lopez - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Prasanna Prasad - Advocate for the respondent.
.............................................................................................................................
ORDER
Per: Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi
This petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 (for short hereinafter referred to as „BNSS, 2023‟) has been preferred
for quashment of FIR No.45/2025 registered by Special Police
Establishment Lokayukta Ujjain and all subsequent proceedings thereto.
2. As per prosecution case, the applicant was posted as Naib
Tehsildar with charge of Tehsildar at Tehsil Nalkheda, Agar Malwa from
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 22-07-2025
18:02:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:18868
2
M.Cr.C.No.30115 of 2025
February, 2022 to 07.07.2023. On 13.03.2024 the applicant was transferred
to Tehsil Badod as Naib Tehsildar. During his time as acting Tehsildar,
Kundaliya Dam Project was to be implemented and a compensation of Rs.5
lacs per adult member was announced to be paid to the affected families
from Bhandawat who had opted out of plot allotment. The claimants had
submitted their claim applications to the Collector Agar Malwa which were
then forwarded to Land Acquisition Officer. A Committee comprising of
(1) Women and Child Development Project Officer, (2) Block Education
Officer, (3) Revenue Inspector, (4) Patwari, (5) Secretary Gram Panchayat
and (6) Aanganwadi worker was constituted to check the claimants and
their eligibility by verifying their date of birth and marital status. This
committee submitted its report to the applicant who objected to it vide his
letters dated 03.05.2023 and 31.05.2023. However, later on one Rajesh
Shrimal, Naib Tehsildar, Nalkheda passed an order dated 07.06.2023 in
compliance with directions dated 05.06.2023 issued by the Sub Divisional
Officer, Susner wherein it was instructed that the deficiencies in the
applications were to be fulfilled by submission of a mark sheet which was
to be of Class V, VIII, X or XII standard. The said Naib Tehsildar acting as
Tehsildar vide his order constituted a Committee comprising of (1) BEO,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 22-07-2025
18:02:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:18868
3
M.Cr.C.No.30115 of 2025
Nalkheda, (2) Women and Child Development Project Officer, (3) Revenue
Inspector Circle – Gram Bhandawat, (4) Patwari, Gram Bhandawat, and
directed them to accept self attested mark sheets of claimants, which were
to be certified by BEO.
3. A report was submitted by the Committee and the applicant
simply forwarded it to the concerned SDM, Susner. The SDM, Susner
requisitioned the record from the Project Manager and passed an award
which was forwarded to the Collector, Agar Malwa for payment. The
Collector, Agar Malwa approved the payment and the cheques were issued,
however, on 27.10.2023 the Collector ordered that 10% of the claim
applications were to be physically verified by Tehsildar Smt. Priti Bhise and
Project Manager Shri Malsingh Chouhan. The instructions were followed
by the aforesaid officers who submitted a report declaring all the claimants
eligible for compensation. On receiving the report, the Collector Agar
Malwa released the payments to the claimants. However, the Collector also
for the first time directed the BEO to compare all three lists of 22, 68 and
49 beneficiaries with the scholar register upon which 114 beneficiaries were
found to be minors and ineligible for compensation. On this the Collector
ordered the freezing of bank accounts of ineligible beneficiaries and return
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 22-07-2025
18:02:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:18868
4
M.Cr.C.No.30115 of 2025
of wrongly paid amount back to the Government Treasury. The Collector
also directed the erstwhile CEO, Zila Panchayat Agar Malwa and
Additional Collector, Agar Malwa to conduct enquiry who found that two
individuals Mahesh Patidar and Deepak Sharma had exhorted the parents of
minors to prepare forged age related documents of their wards and file false
claims. They in collusion with government officials got the false claim
applications valued at Rs.5.85 Crores approved.
4. The investigation wing of Special Police Establishment
proposed registration of FIR against (1) Anup Shrivastav, Project Manager,
WCD, (2) Dinesh Chandra Vaishy, Deputy Engineer, Kundaliya Dam
Project, (3) Surendra Singh Thakur, BEO Nalkheda, (4) Malsingh Chouhan,
Project Manager, Mohanpura Kundaliya, (5) Milind Dhoke SDO Susner,
(6) Priti Bhise Tehsildar Nalkheda, (7) Vikram Singh Uike, RI Nalkheda,
(8) Madanlal Suryavanshi, Patwari, Bhandawat, (9) Shakuntala Badera,
Aangarwadi Worker, GP Bhandawat, (10) Sanatkumar Dwivedi, Secretary,
Gram Panchayat Bhandawat, (11) Malsingh Songara Sarpanch Gram
Panchayat Bhandawat, (12) Mahesh Patidar Sarpach Gram Panchayat
Bhandawat and 96 private individuals under Section 7(c), 13(1)A, 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ( for short „the PC Act‟) and Sections
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 22-07-2025
18:02:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:18868
5
M.Cr.C.No.30115 of 2025
409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of I.P.C. (for short „the IPC‟). The file
was handed over to the Legal Advisor, member of the Higher Judicial
Service i.e District Judge on deputation by the Lokayukta. The Legal
Advisor advised for registration of a criminal case against the applicant and
11 others under Sections 7(c), 13(1)A, 13(2) of the PC Act and Sections
409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the I.P.C. The said note sheet of Legal
Advisor was approved by the then Lokayukta on 03.02.2025. Thereafter the
DSP Lokayukta Office, Ujjain submitted a written police complaint against
the present applicant and 106 other persons and accordingly FIR (Annexure
P/1) was registered at Crime No.45/2025 under Sections 7(c), 13(1)A, 13(2)
of the PC Act and Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the I.P.C.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that Lokayukta erred
in not conducting an enquiry but getting it conducted by the Legal Advisor
who was on deputation from Higher Judicial Service having no authority to
do so. For this he has relied on paragraph 32 of the order dated 22.10.2024
of this Court in the case of Mukesh Ranka Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
and others M.Cr.C.No.6969/2023 and other connected matters. He further
submits that applicant has not committed any illegality and he has simply
forwarded the report submitted by the Committee and his signatures are
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 22-07-2025
18:02:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:18868
6
M.Cr.C.No.30115 of 2025
also under dispute. He has also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in
the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and
submits that no iota of evidence is available against the applicant and it will
be sheer abuse of the process of law if prosecution is allowed to continue
against the applicant. Hence, prays for allowing this petition and quashing
the FIR and subsequent proceedings thereto against the applicant.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer on the
ground that no exception can be taken for registration of FIR against the
applicant as he was acting as Tehsildar during the period wherein
irregularities have been committed in verifying the credentials of the
persons eligible for grant of compensation amount. He further submits that
investigation is continuing to collect the evidence wherein huge amount of
money of Government has been misused. Since the applicant was working
as acting Tehsildar he cannot escape the liability. This Court cannot
carryout roving enquiry or conduct mini trial while exercising inherent
powers provided under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, therefore, as no case is
made out for quashment of FIR by exercising inherent powers vested in this
Court, the petition be dismissed.
7. We have heard the rival contentions raised by the learned
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 22-07-2025
18:02:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:18868
7
M.Cr.C.No.30115 of 2025
counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. Before dwelling into the merits of the case, it is apt to
reproduce the guidelines given by the Apex Court in the case of Bhajan
Lal (Surpa) which reads as under:-
“In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article
226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the following categories of cases are
given by way of illustration herein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court
or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not
be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and
sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid
formuale and to given an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of
cases wherein such power should be
exercised:
(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;
(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. Do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except
under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section
155(2) of the Code;
(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
‘complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same
do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out
a case against the accused;
(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code;
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 22-07-2025
18:02:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:18868
8
M.Cr.C.No.30115 of 2025
(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are
so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which
no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there
is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution
and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party;
(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.”
9. In the case of Supriya Jain vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
reported in (2023) 7 SCC 711, the Apex Court in para 17 relying on the
judgment in the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and another
reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 has held as under:-
“The principles to be borne in mind with regard to quashing
of a charge / proceedings either in exercise of jurisdiction
under section 397, Cr. PC or section 482, Cr. PC or together,
as the case may be, has engaged the attention of this Court
many a time. Reference to each and every precedent is
unnecessary. However, we may profitably refer to only one
decision of this Court where upon a survey of almost all the
precedents on the point, the principles have been
summarized by this Court succinctly. In Amit Kapoor
(Supra), this Court laid down the following guiding
principles:
“27.1. Though there are no limits of the powers of the
Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 22-07-2025
18:02:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:188689
M.Cr.C.No.30115 of 2025
power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in
invoking these powers. The power of quashing criminal
proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms of
Section 228 of the Code should be exercised very
sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the
rarest of rare cases.
27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the
uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the
case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie
establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so
patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent
person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the
basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied
then the Court may interfere.
27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No
meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for
considering whether the case would end in conviction
or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of
charge.
27.4. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely
essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for
correcting some grave error that might be committed by
the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High
Court should be loath to interfere, at the threshold, to
throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent
powers.
27.5. Where there is an express legal bar enacted in any
of the provisions of the Code or any specific law in force
to the very initiation or institution and continuance of
such criminal proceedings, such a bar is intended to
provide specific protection to an accused. 27.6. The Court
has a duty to balance the freedom of a person and the
right of the complainant or prosecution to investigate and
prosecute the offender.
27.7. The process of the court cannot be permitted to be
used for an oblique or ultimate/ulterior purpose.
27.8. Where the allegations made and as they appeared
from the record and documents annexed therewith to
predominantly give rise and constitute a „civil wrong‟Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 22-07-2025
18:02:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1886810
M.Cr.C.No.30115 of 2025
with no „element of criminality‟ and does not satisfy the
basic ingredients of a criminal offence, the court may be
justified in quashing the charge. Even in such cases, the
court would not embark upon the critical analysis of the
evidence.
27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have
to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence
and materials on record to determine whether there is
sufficient material on the basis of which the case would
end in a conviction; the court is concerned primarily with
the allegations taken as a whole whether they will
constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the
process of court leading to injustice.
27.10. It is neither necessary nor is the court called upon
to hold a full-fledged enquiry or to appreciate evidence
collected by the investigating agencies to find out
whether it is a case of acquittal or conviction.
27.11. Where allegations give rise to a civil claim and
also amount to an offence, merely because a civil claim is
maintainable, does not mean that a criminal complaint
cannot be maintained.
27.12. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 228
and/or under Section 482, the Court cannot take into
consideration external materials given by an accused for
reaching the conclusion that no offence was disclosed or
that there was possibility of his acquittal. The Court has
to consider the record and documents annexed therewith
by the prosecution.
27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule
of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even
broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to
permit continuation of prosecution rather than its
quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not
expected to marshal the records with a view to decide
admissibility and reliability of the documents or
records but is an opinion formed prima facie.
27.14. Where the charge-sheet, report under Section
173(2) of the Code, suffers from fundamental legalSignature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 22-07-2025
18:02:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1886811
M.Cr.C.No.30115 of 2025
defects, the Court may be well within its jurisdiction to
frame a charge.
27.15. Coupled with any or all of the above, where the
Court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of
the Code or that the interest of justice favours, otherwise
it may quash the charge. The power is to be exercised ex
debito justitiae i.e. to do real and substantial justice for
administration of which alone, the courts exist.
27.16. These are the principles which individually and
preferably cumulatively (one or more) be taken into
consideration as precepts to exercise of extraordinary and
wide plenitude and jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Code by the High Court. Where the factual foundation for
an offence has been laid down, the courts should be
reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings
even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not
been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is
substantial compliance with the requirements of the
offence.”
10. It is not in dispute that the applicant was acting as Tehsildar at
Tehsil Nalkheda, Agar Malwa when the order for verifying the credentials
of the persons eligible for receiving compensation amount was made and
the report was submitted to the applicant. FIR was not only lodged on the
enquiry conducted by the Legal Advisor of the Lokayukta, but due
procedure has been followed and after that FIR has been registered against
the applicant and others. Evidence in the form of statement of witnesses and
documents are available on record to show the serious irregularities
committed in the selection of beneficiaries. The role of the applicant
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 22-07-2025
18:02:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:18868
12
M.Cr.C.No.30115 of 2025
appears not to be above-board. It is not a case where registration of FIR
against the applicant is misuse of the process of law.
11. In the light of the aforesaid, looking to the factual matrix and
evidence available on record, this Court is of the considered view that it is
not a fit case where inherent power to quash the FIR is to be exercised.
Resultantly, the petition being devoid of merits fails and is hereby
dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 22-07-2025
18:02:12
[ad_1]
Source link