Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shubham Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 May, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24667
1 WP-12512-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 20th OF MAY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 12512 of 2025
SHUBHAM TIWARI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Krishna Kumar Pandey - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri K.V.S. Rao - Panel Lawyer for the State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-
(i) Direct to respondent no. (1) to (5) to
produce the entire record regarding FIR no.
58/2025 and FIR no. 53/2025 for perusal of
this Hon'ble court.
(ii) Direct to respondent no. 1 to 2 to hand
over the case to Additional Superintendent of
Police or Deputy Superintendent of Police to
conduct fair enquiry in crime no. 53/2025
and crime no. 58/2025.
(iii) Call the entire report from the respondent
no. 1 to 4 and after calling the report kindly
set aside FIR no. 53/2025 and direct to
respondent no. 1 to 4 to add the section 307
of IPC in FIR no. 58/2025 and also direct
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24667
2 WP-12512-2025
to respondent on. 1 to 4 to add the accused
respondents no. 7 & 7 in FIR no. 58/2025.
(iv) Direct to respondent no. 1 to 2 to initiate
the departmental enquiry against the
respondent no. 5 under which compulsion the
respondent no.5 did not conducted the fair
enquiry and helping the accused
respondents 6 to 10 and after perusing the
enquiry. kindly dismissed the respondent no.
5 from service in accordance with the
relevant provisions of law, with immediate
effect.
(v) Issue any other writ, order or direction as
this Hon'ble Court deems fit.
2 . Succinctly stated facts of the case are that on 23.1.2025 at about
12:30 PM, an altercation took place between the petitioners and respondent
Nos. 6 to 10 on the issue of parking of a vehicle. In the said altercation, the
respondents abused the petitioner and inflicted injuries by means of knife and
lathi, as a result of which, petitioner No. 1 suffered 5 stab wounds on neck,
stomach, thigh, right hand and left leg and became unconscious. Petitioner
No. 2 sustained injuries on head caused by a lathi and both the petitioners
were hospitalized. The report of the aforesaid incident was lodged by the
wife of petitioner No. 2 namely Shobhna Dubey against respondent Nos. 6, 9
& 10, which has been registered vide Crime No. 58 of 2025 at Police Station
- Madhotal, District Jabalpur for the offences punishable under Sections 296,
115(2), 118(1), 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023.
3. The grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No. 5 has neither
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24667
3 WP-12512-2025
registered the correct offence nor conducting fair investigation as regards the
FIR No. 58 of 2025. It is submitted that the aforesaid offence has not been
registered against respondent Nos. 7 & 8 despite the fact that they were
equally involved in perpetration of the aforesaid offence. It is further
submitted that respondent No. 5 has registered a false FIR against the
petitioners vide Crime No. 53 of 2025. Therefore, it is prayed that
Authorities concerned be directed to conduct fair investigation in the matter
and appropriate offences be registered against the respondent Nos. 6 to 10.
The counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decisions of the
Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Pal Vs. State of Haryana & others -
AIR 2016 SC 618; Ankush Maruti Shinde and others Vs. State of
Maharashtra and connected matters - AIR 2019 SC 1457; Karan Singh Vs.
State of Haryana & another - 2013 AIR SCW 3394; Samaj Parivartan
Samudaya & others Vs. State of Karnataka & others - 2012 AIR SCW 3323;
Narmada Bai Vs. State of Gujarat & others - 2011 AIR SCW 2417; T.C.
Thangaraj Vs. V. Engammal & others - 2011 AIR SCW 4513 and decisions
of this Court in Anurag Modi Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & others -
2010 (2) MPHT 40 (DB); Ramswarup Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others
- 2011 (2) MPHT 307.
4. The counsel for the State submits that the investigation in the matter
is still going on. The final report has not yet been submitted by the Police in
the matter. The Police Authorities are conducting the investigation in
accordance with law and appropriate offences shall be registered against the
accused person. No interference is warranted in the petition at this stage.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24667
4 WP-12512-2025
5. No other point is argued or pressed by the counsel for the parties.
6 . On perusal of record, it reflects that pertaining to the altercation
which alleged to have taken place on 23.1.2025, two FIRs have been lodged
at the same Police Station; an FIR (Annexure P-4) was lodged by the
petitioners against respondent Nos. 6, 9 and 10, which has been registered
vide Crime No.58 of 2025 on 23.1.2025 at 23:09 hours (i.e. 11:09 PM) in the
night for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 118(1), 351(3)
and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and another FIR (Annexure P-5)
was lodged by the respondents against Umashankar Dubey (petitioner No.2),
Sankalp Tiwari, Shubham Tiwari (petitioner No.1) and Nandu which has
been registered vide Crime No. 53 of 2025 on 23.1.2025 at 05:02 AM in the
morning at Police Station Madhotal, District Jabalpur for the offences
punishable under Sections 296, 118(1), 324(4), 119(1), 351(3), 3(5) of the
Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023.
7. On perusal of both the FIRs, it reflects that the FIR No. 53 of 2025
which was lodged against the petitioners was lodged prior in time i.e. at
05:02 AM in the morning on 23.1.2025 whereas the FIR lodged by the
petitioners against respondent Nos. 6, 9 and 10 was lodged on 23.1.2025 at
23:09 hours i.e. 11:09 PM in the night. Therefore, prima facie it appears that
the FIR was lodged by the petitioners after about 17-18 hours of lodging the
FIR by the respondents against them as an afterthought, therefore, the
contention of the counsel for the petitioners that FIR No. 53 of 2025 was
lodged by respondent No. 5 in order to protect respondent Nos. 6 to 10 does
not have any force.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24667
5 WP-12512-2025
8 . As per the Bed Head Ticket of injured Uma Shankar Dubey, the
injuries sustained by him were simple in nature and as per the Bed Head
Ticket of injured Shubham Tiwari, the injuries sustained by him were
grievous in nature. However, on X-Ray chest AP view and X-Ray left writ
of injured Umashankar Dubey and X-ray chest AP view and X-Ray scout
abdomen PA veiw, no bony injuries were seen.
9. On perusal of record, it reflects that the matter is still under
investigation and final report/challan has not yet been filed by the Police
before the trial Court. After filing of the challan before the competent Court,
if the trial Court deems it fit to alter the charges levelled against the accused
persons, according to Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(CrPC), the court has the authority to alter or add to a charge at any point of
time during trial against the accused persons. Meaning thereby the court can
amend the charges against the accused, even after they have not been
initially framed.
10. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to issue the directions as
prayed for by the petitioners in the present petition.
11 . The judgments/orders relied upon by the petitioners are of no
assistance to them being distinguishable on facts.
12. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
PB
