Madhya Pradesh High Court
Uddhav Prasad Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 May, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:22888
1 MCRC-18939-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 2 nd OF MAY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 18939 of 2025
UDDHAV PRASAD PANDEY AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ram Kripal Mishra - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Jubin Prasad - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
ORDER
The present petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashment of FIR
No.410/2024 registered against them at Police Station Kotwali, District
Satna for offence under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution case, in short is that the Head Constable No.773
posted at Police Station Kotwali, District Satna (M.P.) during enquiry of
Marg No.29/34 under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. prepared Panchayatnama of
the dead body and it was found that the dead body is of Vimal Chaturvedi
S/o Nirmal Chaturvedi R/o Hadkhar, Police Station Singhpur and from his
pocket two papers were found in which mobile numbers were mentioned and
particulars of the transactions were written. The said documents has been
seized and one written paper were seized from the family member of the
deceased. Thereafter, the statement of the family members were recorded and
the said written documents were sent for handwriting expert at Bhopal.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:22888
2 MCRC-18939-2025
During enquiry, it is found that the deceased Vimal Chaturvedi was working
with the present petitioners regarding sale and purchase of land. A monetary
dispute arose between the petitioners and the deceased. The petitioners were
not returning the amount of sale and purchase of the property. They were
harassing the deceased. The deceased was of the apprehension that the
petitioners can kill him and as they were mentally harassing the deceased, he
committed suicide by coming in front of the running train. Thereafter, the
police registered the aforesaid offence against the present petitioners and
after investigation, the charge sheet has been filed in the matter which is
registered as RCT No.310/2025. Against the registration of an FIR, the
petitioners have filed this petition for quashment of the aforesaid FIR.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the case. In
the charge sheet there is no direct evidence against the present petitioners of
committing abetment of suicide. It is argued that in the suicide note written
by the deceased nothing has been mentioned with regard to the fact that the
petitioners were mentally harassing the deceased. The deceased has written
in the suicide note that there is an apprehension that the petitioners will kill
him. The charge sheet does not reflect that the petitioners have committed an
offence of abetment of suicide, therefore, offence under Section 306/34 of
the I.P.C. is not made out against the petitioners. On these grounds, they
have prayed for quashment of FIR.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the
contentions stating therein that there is sufficient material available in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:22888
3 MCRC-18939-2025
FIR so as to suggest that the petitioners are prima facie involved in the
offences. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the FIR in which
the final report has been submitted by the authorities clearly reflects the
involvement of the petitioners in the commission of offence. It is a named
FIR against the petitioners. Even the suicide note which is recovered by the
Investigating Agency clearly discloses the name of the petitioners. FIR
cannot be dismissed, if it reflects the involvement of the accused. Hence, he
has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
6. From the record, it is evident that there is a named FIR against the
petitioners. Even the suicide note which is recovered by the Investigating
Agency clearly discloses the name of the petitioners and reflects the
involvement of the petitioners in the commission of abetment of suicide. The
deceased was mentally harassed by the petitioners as they were refusing to
return the amount which is incurred from sale and purchase of the property.
It is the settled proposition of law that the FIR and subsequent charge sheet
can be quashed only in exceptional circumstances. The law with respect to
quashment of an FIR is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in large
number of cases. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a landmark judgment in the
case of State of Haryana vs Bhajanlal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
has laid down certain guidelines which were subsequently considered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment passed in the case of Neeharika
Infrastructure (P) Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra reported in (2021) 19 SCC
401 especially in paragraph 33, certain guidelines have been framed by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:22888
4 MCRC-18939-2025
Hon'ble Supreme Court which read as follows :
"33. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,
our 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 482CrPC 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/charge-sheet is filed under Section 173CrPC, while
dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the
criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers
under Section 482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under:
33.1. 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.
33.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation into the
cognizable offences.
33.3. 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.
33.4. 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).
33.5. 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.
33.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the
initial stage.
33.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception
rather than an ordinary rule.
33.8. 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.
33.9. The functions of the judiciary and the police are
complementary, not overlapping.
33.10. 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.
33.11. Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do
not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:22888
5 MCRC-18939-2025
according to its whims or caprice.
33.12. The first information report is not an encyclopedia
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.
33.13. The power under Section 482CrPC 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.
33.14. 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 R.P. Kapur [R.P. Kapur v. State
of Punjab, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 : AIR 1960 SC 866]
and Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , has the
jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint.
33.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the
alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power
under Section 482CrPC, only has to consider whether the
allegations in the 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.
33.16. 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 482CrPC
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 438CrPC before
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:22888
6 MCRC-18939-2025
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/charge-sheet is filed under Section 173CrPC, while
dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section
482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
33.17. 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 482CrPC 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.
33.18. 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" can be said to be too
vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or
misapplied."
7. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
clarified that when a prayer for quashment of the FIR is made by the alleged
accused and the Court when it exercises powers under Section 482 of
CrPC/528 of BNSS, it has to consider whether the allegations in the 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.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Teeja Devi vs State of
Rajasthan reported in (2014)15 SCC 221 has held as under:
"9. We have no hesitation in holding that in the facts of the
case, the High Court was not justified in interfering with
the police investigation and quashing the FIR. This is not at
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:22888
7 MCRC-18939-2025
all a rare case. Without a thorough investigation, it is not
possible or proper to hold whether the allegations made by
the complainant are true or not. Hence the investigation
should have been allowed to continue so that on filing of
the report under Section 173 CrPC the affected party could
pursue its remedy against the report in accordance with
law. Keeping in view the fact that the criminal case was at
the stage of investigation by the police the High Court was
not justified in holding that the investigation of the
impugned FIR is totally unwarranted and that the same
would amount to gross abuse of the process of the court."
9. After going through the guidelines framed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Neeharika Infrastructure (supra) it is apparently clear that there is a
very limited scope of interference in a petition under Section 482 of
CrPC/528 of BNSS seeking quashment of the FIR. The High Court should
be vigilant and should interfere in rare of rarest cases where prima facie
looking to the FIR no offence is made out against the concern, but in the
present case, there is sufficient material collected by the prosecution against
the petitioners.
10. Further, in the case of Mohd. Akram Siddiqui vs State of Bihar
reported in (2019) 13 SCC 350 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 [Yin Cheng Hsiung v. Essem Chemical Industries,
(2011) 15 SCC 207 : (2012) 4 SCC (Cri) 567] ; State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] and Harshendra
Kumar D. v. Rebatilata Koley [Harshendra Kumar
D. v. Rebatilata Koley, (2011) 3 SCC 351 : (2011) 1 SCC
(Civ) 717 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 1139] to the effect that in an
appropriate case where the document relied upon is a public
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:22888
8 MCRC-18939-2025
document or where veracity thereof is not disputed by the
complainant, the same can be considered."
11. Under these circumstances, there cannot be any quashment of FIR and
criminal proceedings against the petitioners. The grounds which are being
raised are all matter of evidence that is to be establish before the trial
Court. At this stage, it cannot be concluded that the allegations made in the
complaint/FIR have a truth of ring or not or whether ingredients of the
offences alleged are made out or not.
12. It is settled position of law that under Section 482 of CrPC/528 of
BNSS, the High Court cannot embark upon appreciation of evidence
and cannot undertake a detailed examination of the facts contained in the
FIRs by acting as an appellate court and draw its own conclusion. Under
these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that no relief can be
extended to the petitioners as the involvement of the petitioners is clearly
reflected from the very inception that is from the registration of FIR.
13. The petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to
costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
AM
