Madhya Pradesh High Court
Neeraj Raghuwanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27301
1 MCRC-41911-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
ON THE 29th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 41911 of 2024
NEERAJ RAGHUWANSHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Harshit Raghuwanshi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vikram Pippal - PL for the State.
Shri Rakesh Kumar Dubey - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under
Section 528 of te BNSS seeking quashing of FIR vide Crime No.184/2024
registered at Police Station - Indar, District Shivpuri for offences punishable
under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of BNS and consequential
proceedings.
2. The facts in brief necessary for the disposal of the case are that
complainant Vivek Raghuvanshi on 12.07.2024 at about 7.30 pm lodged a
report stating that when he was standing near Gindora Road Bridge, at that
time the present petitioner along with other co-accused persons came there
and started abusing him in filthy language. When the complainant objected
the same, the present petitioner started committing marpeet with the
complainant by means of wooden stick and kicks and fists. It is also alleged
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27301
2 MCRC-41911-2024
that the present petitioner also threatened the complainant of dire
consequences. Accordingly, the FIR was registered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. The reason
behind his false implication is that complainant is working as Supervisor of
the contractor who was was constructing the road in Village Gindora,
District Shivpuri. The petitioner lodged complaint no. 27109634 dated
12.05.2024 at C.M. Helpline against the contractor that the road constructed
by the contractor and under the supervision of the complainant is of low
quality due to which several problems are faced by the petitioner and the
residents of the village. Due to inadequate response, petitioner lodged
another complaint dated 31.05.2024. Then the contractor threatened the
present petitioner to withdraw the complaints lodged at the C.M. Helpline
and to stop the further complaints in the matter, otherwise a false case may
be registered against the petitioner. Resultantly, the contractor in conspiracy
with the complainant lodged a false FIR No. 0184/2024 against the
petitioner. The petitioner also approached the Officer-in-charge of the P.S.
Indar and S.P. District Shivpuri for free and fair investigation but to no
avail.
4. It is further submitted that on the date of incident, the present
petitioner was not present on the place of incident and he was at village
Khatora and the same fact has also been mentioned in the representation
preferred before S.P. District Shivpuri (Annexure P/6).
5. In the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hira Lal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27301
3 MCRC-41911-2024
and Others vs. State of UP and Others reported in AIR 2009 SC 2380 it was
held that --
"10. The parameters of interference with a_ criminal
proceeding by the High Court in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code are well
known. One of the grounds on which such interference
is permissible is that the allegations contained in the
complaint petition even if given face value and taken to
be correct in their entirety, commission of an offence is
not disclosed. The High Court may also- interfere where
the action on the part of the complainant is malafide.
6. The Medical Report of the complainant dated 12.07.2024 with MLC
No. 018/2024 states that there was a subjective complaint of pain by the
complainant .Also, it is alleged that injuries were caused to the complainant
by three persons by use of lathi or hand & legs but in the MLC no such
identification is made by the doctor that any external injury or bruise on the
complainant's body was found. This per se reflects that there was no actual
injury to the complainant which has been alleged by him in the FIR and the
said FIR is nothing but an act of the contractor to threaten the petitioner to
withdraw the complaints lodged at C.M. Helpline and stop petitioner from
further raising the voice in the issue.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahmood Ali v. State of
U.P., reported in (2008) 5 SCC 340 has held that;-
"12. At this stage, we would like to observe something
important. Whenever an accused comes before the
Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) or
extraordinary Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27301
4 MCRC-41911-2024
quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings
are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with
the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in
such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into
the FIR with care and little more closely. We say so
because once the complainant decides to proceed
against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking
personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the
FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the
necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that
the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that
they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for
the Court to look into the averments made in the
FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining
whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or
vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look
into many other attending circumstances emerging from
the record of the case over and above the averments
and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to
read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article
226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to
the stage of a case but is empowered to take into
account the overall circumstances leading to the
initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials
collected in the course of investigation. Take for
instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been
registered over a period of time. It is in the background
of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs
assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of
wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge
as alleged.
8. Learned counsel for petitioner has also placed reliance on the
judgement of this Court passed in the case of Sharad Dave and another Vs.
Mahesh Gupta and others decided on 10.01.2005 [2005 LawSuit (MP)
442]. On all these grounds, counsel for petitioner prayed that the petition
may be allowed and the FIR vide Crime No.184/2024 registered at Police
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27301
5 MCRC-41911-2024
Station - Indar, District Shivpuri for offences punishable under Sections 296,
115(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of BNS and consequential proceedings be quashed.
9. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for respondent
No.2 submit that the FIR discloses the commission of cognizable offences,
the investigation is complete and charge-sheet has been filed. This Court
ought not to stifle legitimate prosecution. It is contended that the present
petition is misconceived and that the FIR cannot be quashed merely on the
basis of factual disputes.
10. Heard counsel for the rival parties and perused the documents
appended thereto.
11. From perusal of the facts and circumstances and record available
herein, this Court finds that the present petitioner has not filed any
documents in support of his submission that the complainant is an employee
of the contractor against whom the petitioner lodged the complainant on
C.M. Helpline. This Court also finds that the petitioner has taken plea of alibi
stating that he was not present on the date of incident at the place of incident,
but the present petitioner not filed any evidence in regard that at the time of
incident he was in village-Khatora.
12. It is by now well-settled that the inherent powers under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. are of wide amplitude, but are to be exercised sparingly, with
circumspection, and only in the rarest of rare cases to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.
13. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) Supp 1 SCC 335 , the
Hon'ble Supreme Court exhaustively delineated seven illustrative categories
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27301
6 MCRC-41911-2024
where the High Court may exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal
proceedings. However, the Court at the same time cautioned that such power
should not be exercised to examine the reliability or genuineness of the
allegations, nor to substitute its own appreciation of evidence at the
investigation stage.
14. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra ,
(2021) 6 SCC 116 , the Supreme Court reaffirmed that while the inherent
power under Section 482 is not curtailed, it cannot be exercised to interfere
with investigation merely because the allegations appear improbable or
motivated, so long as they disclose a cognizable offence on the face of it.
15. Further, in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 , it
was held that the Court must apply a test as to whether the uncontroverted
allegations, as made, prima facie establish the offence. Quashing is justified
only when the allegations do not disclose any offence, or the proceedings are
manifestly attended with mala fides or maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive.
16. This Court cannot embark upon a roving inquiry into the veracity
of the statements or evaluate the sufficiency of evidence. The jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised as if the Court were
conducting a mini-trial. The offences alleged are not of a purely personal
nature but have a bearing on public order.
17. Recently, in M. Jayanthi v. K.R. Meenakshi , (2022) 7 SCC 189,
the Supreme Court observed that unless the complaint fails to disclose any
offence even on a broad reading, the High Court should refrain from
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27301
7 MCRC-41911-2024
quashing an FIR merely because one or more ingredients may appear to be
lacking such matters are to be tested by evidence during trial.
18. In view of the foregoing principles, this Court finds that the
allegations contained in the FIR, taken at their face value, do prima facie
disclose the commission of cognizable offences under the sections invoked.
There is no patent illegality, manifest absurdity, or mala fide so apparent on
the record as to warrant interference at this stage.
19. For the reasons recorded hereinabove and in light of the
authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for
exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
20. Accordingly, the petition dismissed. However, it is clarified that
nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the
case, and the Trial Court shall proceed strictly in accordance with law. No
order as to costs.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
Vishal
