Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manik Maniramji Shahare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 May, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:22530
1 MCRC-17282-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 9 th OF MAY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 17282 of 2025
MANIK MANIRAMJI SHAHARE AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Sharma - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Amit Bhurrak - Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
ORDER
The present petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashment of FIR dated 07.06.2024 being
Crime No. 188 of 2024 registered at Police Station Khairlanji District
Balaghat (M.P.) for the offence under Section 379 of IPC as well as under
Rule 18 of Madhya Pradesh (Prevention of illegal Mining, Transportation
and Storage) Rules, 2022 & Rule 30 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 and
the further proceedings arising thereon against the petitioners.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case, in substance, is that on the
report of complainant Suresh Kulaste, Mining Inspector and on the
instructions of Collector Balaghat, the FIR in question has been lodged
wherein it is alleged that the petitioners are indulged in illegal mining
and transportation of sand from Bawanthadi river, Balaghat (M.P.) to the
State of Maharashtra and misused the royalty for another place and thereby
committed the offence noted above. Accordingly, the aforesaid FIR was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:22530
2 MCRC-17282-2025
lodged.
3. Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners
are innocent and they have falsely been implicated due to animosity between
the contractors and owners of mining lease. The petitioners have not
committed any offence and there is no seizure of illegal sand from their
possession or from their vehicles. If the facts and story narrated in the FIR is
accepted on its face value, it does not attract Section 379 of IPC. It is
submitted that the police has no jurisdiction to register the case under the
Mineral Rules and only complaint can be filed before the competent Court.
To buttress the submission, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Kapil Agrawal vs Sanjay Sharma reported in
(2021) 5 SCC 524 wherein it is held that Section 482 of CrPC is designed to
achieve the purpose of ensuring that criminal proceedings are not permitted
to generate into weapons of harassment. On these grounds, petitioner's
counsel has prayed for quashment of FIR and subsequent proceedings
initiated against them.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the
contentions pointing out that there is sufficient material available in the FIR
so as to suggest that the petitioners are prima facie involved in the
commission of the offences. Hence, no interference is required in the matter.
5. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
6. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:22530
3 MCRC-17282-2025
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has laid down certain guidelines which were
subsequently reiterated 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, wherein certain
guidelines have been framed 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 482 CrPC
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 173 CrPC,
while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing
the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers
under Section 482 CrPC 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:22530
4 MCRC-17282-2025
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 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 482 CrPC 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 482 CrPC, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:22530
5 MCRC-17282-2025
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 482 CrPC 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 CrPC 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/charge-sheet is filed under Section 173 CrPC,
while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under
Section 482 CrPC 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
482 CrPC 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:22530
6 MCRC-17282-2025
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
(Section 528 of the 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 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
very limited scope of interference in a petition under Section 482 of CrPC
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:22530
7 MCRC-17282-2025
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. ....
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 established before the trial Court
by leading cogent evidence. At this stage, it cannot be concluded that the
allegations made in the FIR have a truth of ring or not or whether ingredients
of the offences alleged are made out or not.
12. The record of the case indicates that the petitioners are found involved
in illegal transportation of sand from one State to another without following
the norms as prescribed under the Rules in vogue. Accordingly, notices
under Section 91 of CrPC were issued. Thereafter, upon the report of Mining
Inspector and on the instructions of Collector Balaghat, the FIR in question
was lodged against the petitioners. There is sufficient material available on
record to connect the petitioners with the aforementioned offence. Therefore,
at this stage, it cannot be said that allegations made are false or baseless. The
defence cannot be looked into by this Court at the initial stage of criminal
proceedings. It is settled position of law that under Section 482 of CrPC
(Section 528 BNSS), this Court cannot embark upon appreciation of
evidence and cannot undertake a detailed examination of the facts contained
in the FIR by acting as an appellate court and draw its own conclusion.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:22530
8 MCRC-17282-2025
Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that no case is
made out warranting interference under the inherent powers.
13. The petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to
costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
VV
