Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sandeep Badjatya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 March, 2025
1 MCRC-1396-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
MCRC No. 1396 of 2025
(SANDEEP BADJATYA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 07-03-2025
Shri Ajay Bagadia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Dr.
Hemnarayan Giri and Shri Arpit Oswal, learned counsel for the petitioners
are present.
Shri Kratik Mandloi, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State is present.
This criminal petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed by
the petitioners/accused No.1- Sandeep Badjatya and accused No.2- Sumit
Juneja seeking quashment of F.I.R. in case in Crime No.419/2024 registered
at police station-Agar, District-Agar Malwa under Sections 409, 420, 467,
468, 471 r/w 120B of IPC
2 . At the time of hearing, learned public prosecutor stated that
petitioner No.1-Sandeep Badjatya filed an anticipatory bail application which
was dismissed and subsequently he was arrested.
3. So far as petitioner No.2- Sumit Juneja is concerned, he has not
filed any application and so far he has not been arrested and investigation is
in progress.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner No.2/accused No.2 stated that
petitioner Nos.1 and 2 acquired a land and formed layout consisting 250
plots and out of which the petitioners sold 52 plots to the respondent No.2,
thereafter, the petitioners obtained approved layout from the Town and
2 MCRC-1396-2025
Country Planning Department, which was approved by the department
annexed as annexure Ex.P-4. He further stated that petitioners sold 52 plots
to respondent No.2 and later, he filed an application for demarcation and
during the demarcation, 8 plots were less and then the petitioners gave an
undertaking to repay back the cost of 8 plots to them and their undertaking
may be recorded. The plots which were sold to respondent No.2, there is no
change of size of any of the plots and in spite of agreeing to repay the
amount for 8 plots, which were not existed while demarcation, the
respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against the petitioners.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner No.2 further submits that the
allegation made in the complaint are purely of civil nature and respondent
No.2 created a colour of criminal nature from the civil in nature. Therefore,
he seeks protection against the petitioner No.2. In support of his arguments,
he filed I.A. No.318/2024, for stay of arrest of the petitioner No.2. He further
stated that sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 of IPC are triable by
Magistrate, less than 7 years and except Section 409 of IPC / Section 316 of
BNS, life imprisonment or 10 years but is triable by Magistrate.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner No.2 has placed reliance upon
the judgment in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State
of Maharashtra and others, 2021 SCC Online SC 318. Relying on the
decision, he prayed for interim protection directing the police not to take any
coercive steps against the petitioner No.2. In the aforesaid case, in para 80,
the Apex Court has held as under:-
"80. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our
3 MCRC-1396-2025
final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High
Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of
investigation and/or "no coercive steps to be adopted", during the
pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C
and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what
circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in
passing the order of not to arrest the accused or "no coercive steps
to be adopted" during the investigation or till the final
report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while
dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal
proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
our final conclusions are as under:
i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in
Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence;
ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable
offences;
iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of
any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court
will not permit an investigation to go on;
iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with
circumspection, as it has been observed, in the 'rarest of rare cases
(not to be confused with the formation in the context of death
penalty).
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is
sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the
reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in
the FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial
stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather
than an ordinary rule;
4 MCRC-1396-2025
viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the
jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate
in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread
over the other sphere;
ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are
complementary, not overlapping;
x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result
in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should
not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;
xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer
an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims
or caprice;
xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which
must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported.
Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the
court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR.
Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would
be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that
the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it
amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the
investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the
application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may
file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate
which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance
with the known procedure;
xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but
conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious.
It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court;
xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard
being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint
imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by
this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal
(supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint;
xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged
accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section
482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the
5 MCRC-1396-2025
FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court
is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of
the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to
permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the
allegations in the FIR;
xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the
aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court
while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of
investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be
passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not
require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically.
Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are
hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court,
the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim
order of not to arrest or "no coercive steps to be adopted" and the
accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under
Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court
shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to
arrest and/or "no coercive steps" either during the investigation or
till the investigation is completed and/or till the final
report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while
dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the
opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim
stay of further investigation, after considering the broad
parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to
hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an
interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it
can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the
higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court
while passing such an interim order.
xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of
"no coercive steps to be adopted" within the aforesaid parameters,
the High Court must clarify what does it mean by "no coercive
steps to be adopted" as the term "no coercive steps to be adopted"
6 MCRC-1396-2025
can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be
misunderstood and/or misapplied.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner No.2 further placed reliance in
the case of Siddharth Mukesh Bhandari Vs. State of Gujrat and another, 2022
(10) SCC, 525. In para 10 of this judgment, it has been held that "what is
emphasized by this Court in the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.
Ltd is that grant of any stay of investigation and/or any interim relief while
exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. would be only in the rarest
of rare cases".
8. On a cumulative reading of above decisions, this Court is of the
view that while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the interim
orders like referred in decisions should be sparingly be passed and it cannot
be a routine and casual manner. It is also pertinent to mention that
investigation is in progress, the allegations mentioned in the complaint and
its nature is purely of civil in nature since plots were allotted and during the
demarcation, plots were reduced and the petitioners have given undertaking
that they are ready to repay the cost of 8 plots and stated that their
undertaking may be recorded.
9. So, therefore, considering the above circumstances on perusal of
the record, the respondent No.2 has created the colour of criminal nature and
lodged report and, therefore, in such circumstances, in view of the above and
for the reasons stated above, directed that "no coercive steps be taken /
measures be adopted" against the petitioner No.2- Sumit Juneja in respect
of F.I.R. in Crime No.419/2024 dated 23.09.2024 registered at police station-
Agar, District-Agar Malwa. Further directed the respondent
7 MCRC-1396-2025
No.1/investigating officer to proceed with the investigation. Accordingly,
I.A. No.318/2024 is allowed.
10. Issue notice to the respondent No.2 by registered A.D. mode as per
Civil Rules of practice and file a proof of service.
List the matter on 01.05.2025.
(DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA)
JUDGE
N.R.
