Madhya Pradesh High Court
Panne Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 October, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25782
1 MCRC-44271-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 13 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 44271 of 2025
PANNE KHAN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ravi Bhargava - Advocate for petitioners.
Ms Kalpana Parmar - Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of
BNSS seeking quashment of FIR bearing Crime No. 498/2025 registered at Police
Station Bahodapur, District Gwalior, for offences punishable under Sections
115(2), 118(1), 296 and 3(5) of BNS.
2. As per the prosecution case, on 01.09.2025 the complainant had gone to
the house of a distant relative, Panna Khan, to demand the remaining amount of
Rs. 6 lakh from the sale of his land. It is alleged that during the altercation, Panna
assaulted the complainant with a sharp iron object on the right side of his head,
and subsequently, Panna's son Dildar also assaulted him, causing further injuries.
Thereafter, both accused threatened the complainant with dire consequences in
case he reported the matter to the police. On receiving a call on Dial 100, the
police reached the spot and took the complainant to Hajira Hospital for treatment,
from where he was referred to JAH Trauma Centre. Based on the said incident, the
aforementioned FIR was registered against the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the FIR has been
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25782
2 MCRC-44271-2025
lodged on false and fabricated grounds. It is submitted that on 07.10.2023, the
mother and brothers of respondent No. 2 executed an agreement to sell
agricultural land in favour of petitioner No. 1. However, on the basis of the said
agreement, they did not execute the sale deed in favour of petitioner No. 1 within
the stipulated time. Aggrieved by this, petitioner No. 1 filed a civil suit for
specific performance of contract before the Court of the First Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Morena, against the mother and brothers of respondent No. 2. Though
the mother and brothers of respondent No. 2 appeared initially, they have not
appeared in the proceedings for the last three dates. In order to avoid the said civil
suit, respondent No. 2 has lodged a false and fabricated FIR by inflicting injuries
upon himself, which is liable to be quashed. The petitioners have also submitted
representations to the authorities seeking impartial investigation, but no action has
been taken.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that as per the
MLC report, injuries have been found on the body of the complainant. Whether
the said injuries were self-inflicted or caused by the petitioners is a matter of
evidence which cannot be decided at this stage. Thus, it is prayed that the present
petition be dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available
on record.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan
Singh (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 292) has laid down the parameters of exercising the
extraordinary power of quashing the criminal proceedings by observing as under:
"As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or
quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the
mini trial. The High Court in the common impugned judgment and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25782
3 MCRC-44271-2025
order has observed that the charges against the accused are not proved.
This is not the stage where the prosecution / investigating agency is/are
required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved
during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution /
investigating agency. Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in
going in detail in the allegations and the material collected during the
course of the investigation against the accused, at this stage. At the
stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C., the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to
consider whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further
against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not."
7. In the present case, the FIR contains specific allegations against the
petitioners with regard to assault and criminal intimidation. The allegations, if
taken at their face value, clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offences
under the provisions of BNS. The grounds urged by the petitioners pertain to
disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated at this stage and are matters
for investigation and trial.
8. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any ground to quash the
FIR at this stage.
9. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. However, it is observed that
the petitioners shall be at liberty to avail the remedy available to them under law at
the appropriate stage.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
