Madhya Pradesh High Court
Upendra Singh Rajawat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26777
1 WP-10540-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
WRIT PETITION No. 10540 of 2025
UPENDRA SINGH RAJAWAT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vikram Singh Chauhan - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Prabhat Pateriya - Dy.Govt. Advocate for respondents No. 1
to 3/State.
None for the respondent No.4 though served.
Reserved on : 14/10/2025
Delivered on : 17/10/2025
ORDER
1. With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. The instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India seeks quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.52/2024 registered
against the petitioner at Police Station Nayagaon, District Bhind and all
further proceedings arising therefrom in Sessions Trial No.7/2025 pending in
the Court of Sessions Judge, Bhind.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. The perusal of
the FIR would reveal that in fact, it is the complainant who instigated the
fight and with an intention to kill the petitioner, fired two rounds at him. It is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26777
2 WP-10540-2025
further submitted that the petitioner, in order to save himself from the said
assault, allegedly snatched the firearm from the complainant and fired a shot
in self- defence.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that
earlier, he had approached this Court seeking quashment of FIR in
W.P.No.24936/2024 which came to be disposed of vide order dated
28.11.2024 wherein, the coordinate bench of this Court though declined to
interfere in the FIR at that stage but granted liberty to the petitioner to seek
quashment of the FIR after the investigation is complete.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that now
the investigation stands completed, the challan has been filed before the
competent court on 5.6.2024 and therefore, the petition has been filed. He
further submits that in fact for the same incident, the FIR at the instance of
petitioner has been registered against the complainant which is prior in point
of time and the FIR against the petitioner by the complainant is subsequent
and therefore, the subsequent FIR being a counterblast and an attempt to save
the complainant from the earlier FIR, deserves to be quashed in view of the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineet Kumar &
Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2017) 13 SCC 369. Accordingly,
the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prays for interference in the
matter.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State
submits that the investigation in the matter stands completed, after filing of
challan, the competent court had taken cognizance of the matter and charges
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26777
3 WP-10540-2025
have also been framed against the petitioner. The trial is at the stage of
evidence and therefore, the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is itself not maintainable. The petitioner is now required
to challenge the framing of charges in accordance with law.
7. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel appearing
for the parties.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. The preliminary issue which arises for consideration by this Court is
as to whether, a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking quashment of FIR is maintainable once, the trial Court has
taken cognizance of the offences and the charges have been framed against
the petitioner/accused. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., Special Leave to
Appeal (Crl.) No.13424/2025 vide order dated 3.9.2025 has been pleased to
hold as under:-
"8. However, from the preamble of the writ petition filed by the
petitioner before the Bombay High Court, it is evident that the same
sought to invoke the twin jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution and Section 528 of the BNSS for having the FIR
quashed. It is true that the police report (charge-sheet) had been filed
on 14 th May, 2025 upon completion of investigation of the FIR, but
whether or not cognizance had been taken by the jurisdictional
magistrate is not too clear from the impugned order extracted above.
So long cognisance of the offence is not taken, a writ or order to
quash the FIR/charge-sheet could be issued under Article
226; however, once a judicial order of taking cognisance intervenes,
the power under Article 226 though not available to be exercised,
power under Section 528, BNSS was available to be exercised to
quash not only the FIR/charge-sheet but also the order taking
cognisance, provided the same is placed on record along with the
requisite pleadings to assail the same and a strong case for such
quashing is set up. Significantly, it was reasoned by us in Neeta
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26777
4 WP-10540-2025
Singh (supra) that a judicial order not being amenable to challenge
before a high court under Article 226 of the Constitution and there
being no prayer either under Article 227 thereof or Section 482,
Cr.PC, the Allahabad High Court was right in holding the writ
petition under Article 226 to have been rendered infructuous."
10.The perusal of the aforesaid judgment passed by the Apex Court
indicates that the remedy of seeking quashment of FIR under Article 226 of
Constitution of India is available only so long as cognizance of the offence is
not taken by the trial Court. In the instant case admittedly, the trial Court
vide order dated 18.02.2025 (Annexure R/1) passed in Sessions Case
No.7/2025 has already taken cognizance of the offences. In view whereof,
the instant writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India at this
stage is not maintainable. Record indicates that in the earlier writ petition
bearing W.P. No.24936/2024, though the petitioner was granted liberty to
seek quashment of FIR but the said liberty has to be construed to be subject
to the remedies available under law. The present petition was filed on
20.03.2025 whereas, the cognizance of offences has been taken by the
learned trial Court on 18.02.2025 itself.
11.In view of the above, the instant writ petition filed by the petitioner
is dismissed as not maintainable in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni (supra). Liberty is,
however, reserved in favour of the petitioner to seek redress of his
grievances in accordance with law.
12. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand closed.
(AMIT SETH)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26777
5 WP-10540-2025
JUDGE
Van
