Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anurag Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 October, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:24991
1 MCRC-48792-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 6 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 48792 of 2022
ANURAG SHRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Kumar Bahirani - Advocate for the applicants.
Shri Shishupal Singh Gurjar - Panel Lawyer for the State.
Shri Faisal Ali Shah - Advocate for the complainant.
ORDER
The present application has been filed by the applicants under Section
528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter "BNSS"),
seeking quashment of FIR bearing Crime No. 727 of 2022, registered at
Police Station Civil Lines, District Morena for commission of offences under
Sections 195-A, 507 and 34 of IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom.
As per prosecution story, the complainant Ashish Srivastava, son of
Late Shri Jayendra Srivastava, aged 37 years, resident of M-1207, Mayurvan
Colony, Morena, appeared at the police station and orally reported that he
had earlier lodged an FIR at Police Station Gola Ka Mandir, Gwalior, against
his brother-in-law Anurag Srivastava (applicant No.1), father-in-law Govind
Srivastava, and wife Diksha Srivastava, in connection with a case of assault
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:24991
2 MCRC-48792-2022
registered in April 2021, which is presently under consideration before the
Court at Gwalior.
Due to the said case, Anurag Srivastava (applicant No.1), Ankit
Srivastava (applicant No.4), Pradeep Srivastava(applicant No.3), and Abhay
Srivastava (applicant No.2) have been continuously abusing him over his
mobile number 9926234143, threatening him to withdraw the said criminal
case as well as the divorce proceedings instituted by him, and warning him
not to appear as a witness. They have also threatened that if he appears to
give evidence in the Court, they will kill him and his family members. In
addition to this, they have been posting similar threats on their Facebook and
WhatsApp accounts. On the basis of such allegation, alleged crime was
registered against the applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have no
connection whatsoever with the alleged offence and have been falsely
implicated in the present matter. It is pertinent to note that in the FIR,
respondent No.2 has merely alleged that the applicants have been abusing
him almost every day over his mobile phone, threatening him to withdraw
the criminal case and the divorce proceedings pending before the competent
court. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that no specific details have been
provided neither the mobile number from which the alleged calls were made,
nor the specific dates, nor which particular applicant allegedly called or
threatened the complainant. In the absence of such essential particulars, the
registration of the FIR is nothing but an abuse of the process of law, having
been lodged in haste and without any preliminary inquiry. It is a well-settled
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:24991
3 MCRC-48792-2022
principle that some foundational material must exist before an FIR is
registered. However, in the present case, the police did not even question the
complainant regarding any specific incident or date, which renders the FIR
unsustainable and unjustified. Furthermore, the allegations made in the FIR
do not constitute any offence under Sections 195(A), 507, or 34 of the Indian
Penal Code. Hence, the registration of the FIR against the applicants is
wholly untenable in the eyes of law and liable to be quashed.
It is further submitted that respondent No.2 has not disclosed the status
or role of applicant Nos.2 and 4 in the FIR, nor has he made any specific
allegation against them. The FIR contains only omnibus and vague
allegations, which cannot be accepted as valid in the absence of any
established relationship or connection between these applicants and the
respondent No.2. Moreover, the complainant has not produced any document
or record such as call details to substantiate his claim that he received calls
from the applicants.
It is further submitted that applicant No.1 is presently employed in
Dehradun, applicant No.2 resides in Ashok Nagar, and applicant Nos.3 and 4
are residents of Dana, Gwalior and they have never met or interacted with
respondent No.2 regarding any matrimonial dispute. The present FIR has
been maliciously lodged to pressurize the applicants into withdrawing the
Section 498-A IPC case pending against the complainant's family, and thus,
the FIR is motivated and vexatious.
It is also noteworthy that an FIR bearing Crime No.289/2021 was
registered against respondent No.2 and his family members at Police Station
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:24991
4 MCRC-48792-2022
Dabra, pursuant to which respondent No.2 filed an application under Section
482 Cr.P.C., registered as MCRC No. 43788/2021, wherein he failed to
obtain any relief from this Court. In retaliation, respondent No.2 has lodged
the present FIR at Civil Lines, Morena, merely as a counterblast to the said
proceedings, with the ulterior motive of exerting pressure to withdraw
MCRC No. 32010/2021, filed by the present applicants and Ms. Diksha
Srivastava (sister of Applicant No.1).
It is further submitted that before registering the FIR, the police
authorities failed to properly examine the applicability of Section 195-A
IPC, which deals with threatening or inducing a person to give false
evidence. A bare reading of this provision makes it clear that the offence can
arise only when there is actual inducement or threat to give false evidence in
a proceeding, whereas in the present case, no false evidence has been given
and no court has acted upon any such alleged testimony. Therefore,
invocation of Section 195(A) IPC is misconceived and legally unsustainable.
While placing reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in
the matter of Salib@Shalu@Salim vs. State of UP and Ors. reported in 2023
Live Law (SC) 618, it was submitted that for attracting the provision of
Section 195-A of IPC, it is necessary that if a witness or any other person
receives threats and such threats are administered with an intent to cause that
person to give false evidence before the Court, then such witness or person
can file complaint in relation to an offence under Section 195A of the IPC as
provided under Section 195A of CrPC. It goes without saying that such
complaint has to be lodged before the Court recording the evidence and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:24991
5 MCRC-48792-2022
Section 195A of Cr.PC provides a remedy for filing a complaint and since no
complaint has been made by the respondent no.2, therefore, registering of
offence under Section 195A of IPC is bad in law.
Similarly, Section 507 IPC, which pertains to criminal intimidation by
anonymous communication, is also not attracted since no such anonymous
act is alleged or proved. Thus, registration of the FIR on such grounds is a
prima facie abuse of the process of law and deserves to be quashed.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as the
counsel for the complainant had submitted that the FIR lodged by the
complainant clearly discloses the commission of cognizable offences under
Sections 195(A), 507, and 34 of the IPC, as it contains specific allegations
that the accused persons repeatedly abused and threatened him to withdraw
pending criminal and matrimonial proceedings, and also posted such threats
on social media. The law is well settled that at the stage of registration of FIR
or investigation, the Court is not required to go into the correctness or
sufficiency of the allegations. The police is duty-bound to investigate when
the complaint discloses a prima facie offence. In this context, reliance is
placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Salib @ Shalu @
Salim vs. State of U.P. & Ors. ( supra), wherein it has been held that the
inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be
exercised sparingly and only in the rarest of cases, and quashing of FIR at
the threshold should not be done when the allegations, taken at their face
value, make out a prima facie case. The Apex Court has further held that
disputed facts or alleged false implication are matters for investigation or
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:24991
6 MCRC-48792-2022
trial, not for consideration at the stage of quashing. Hence, in view of the
settled position of law, the present application deserves to be dismissed.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The Apex Court in the matter of Salib@Shalu@Salim (supra) in
paragraph 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, had dealt with issue of registration of an
offence under Section 195A of IPC. For reference the aforesaid paragraphs
are quoted herein below:
15. There is a different angle to this matter. It appears
that the investigating agency has invoked Section 195A of
the IPC.
Section 195A of the IPC reads thus:- "Section 195A.
Threatening any person to give false evidence.─Whoever
threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or
property or to the person or reputation of any one in whom
that person is interested, with intent to cause that person to
give false evidence shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to seven
years, or with fine, or with both; and if innocent person is
convicted and sentenced in consequence of such false
evidence, with death or imprisonment for more than seven
years, the person who threatens shall be punished with the
same punishment and sentence in the same manner and to the
same extent such innocent person is punished and
sentenced."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:24991
7 MCRC-48792-2022
16. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision indicates
that if any individual is threatened with any injury to his
person, reputation or property and such threats are
administered with intent to cause that person to give false
evidence, the same would constitute an offence under
Section 195Aof the IPC. In our opinion, none of the
ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under
Section 195A of the IPC are disclosed, on plain reading of
the FIR and the further statement of the first informant
including the statement of the so-called eye witness. The
allegation in the FIR is that the accused persons threatened
and pressurized the first informant to withdraw her first FIR
bearing No. 122 of 2022 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 376D, 323, 120B, 354A and 452
reply of the IPC. There is nothing to indicate that the accused
persons threatened the first informant with intent that the first
informant gives false evidence before the Court of law. The
later part of Section 195A makes it very clear that false
evidence means false evidence before the Court of law. On
such false evidence if a person is convicted and sentenced,
then the person found guilty of administering threats would
be liable to be punished with the same punishment and
sentence in the same manner and to the same extent as such
innocent person is punished and sentenced. The word "false"
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:24991
8 MCRC-48792-2022
in Section 195Ashould be read in the context with what has
been explained in Section 191 of the IPC which falls in
Chapter XI - of False Evidence and Offences Against Public
Justice. Thus, even if we believe the allegations levelled in
the FIR to be true, none of the ingredients to constitute the
offence punishable under Section 195A are disclosed. To
give threat to a person to withdraw a complaint or FIR or
settle the dispute would not attract Section 195A of the IPC.
17. In the aforesaid context, we must look into Section
195A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Section
195A of the CrPC reads thus:- "Section 195A. Procedure for
witnesses in case of threatening, etc.--Awitness or any other
person may file a complaint in relation to an offence under
section 195A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."
18. The plain reading of the aforesaid provision 6
indicates that if a witness or any other person receives threats
and such threats are administered with an intent to cause that
person to give false evidence before the Court, then such
witness or person can file a complaint in relation to the
offence under Section 195A of the IPC. It goes without
saying that such complaint has to be lodged before the Court
recording the evidence. Section 195A of the CrPC provides a
remedy of filing a complaint. "Complaint" means as defined
under Section 2(d) of the CrPC which reads thus:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:24991
9 MCRC-48792-2022
"Section 2(d) "complaint" means any allegation made
orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking
action under this Code, that some person, whether known or
unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a
police report.
Explanation.--A report made by a police officer in a
case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a
non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint;
and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be
deemed to be the complainant;"
19. We are conscious of the fact that Section 195A of
the IPC is a cognizable offence. In a cognizable offence,
police has power to investigate. We are not going into the
question whether the bar of Section 195 of the CrPC would
apply to Section 195A of the IPC as we have taken the view
that none of the ingredients to constitute the offence
punishable under Section 195A of the IPC are disclosed in
the facts of the present case.
A plain reading of Section 195A indicates that if any individual is
threatened with any injury to his person, reputation or property and such
threats are administered with intent to cause that person to give false
evidence, the same would constitute an offence under Section 195A of the
IPC.
Upon careful consideration of the submissions made by the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:24991
10 MCRC-48792-2022
counsel for the parties, the FIR, and the relevant provisions of law, the Court
finds that the allegations in the FIR lodged by the complainant primarily
relate to threats and pressure purportedly exerted on him by the applicants to
withdraw criminal or matrimonial proceedings and to refrain from giving
evidence in such matters.
While the complainant has alleged acts of harassment and
intimidation, it is evident that Section 195-A of the Indian Penal Code is
intended to punish threats administered with the specific intent to induce a
person to give false evidence before a court of law. The allegations, even if
taken at their face value, do not disclose such intent. Consequently, neither
the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 195-A IPC nor the
procedural requirements contemplated under Section 195-A of the Code of
Criminal Procedure are satisfied, rendering the registration of this part of the
FIR legally unsustainable. Nevertheless, having regard to the nature of the
allegations concerning threats, this Court finds sufficient justification for the
continuation of investigation in respect of the offences under Section 507
IPC (criminal intimidation by anonymous communication) read with Section
34 IPC (common intention) of the IPC, which may legitimately cover the
alleged acts of intimidation.
This Court is, however, not entering into the question whether the bar
contained in Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would apply to
Section 195-A of the Indian Penal Code, as the Court has already taken the
view that none of the ingredients constituting the offence under Section 195-
A IPC are disclosed in the facts of the present case.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:24991
11 MCRC-48792-2022
Accordingly, the Court is of the considered view that while
investigation into other offences under Sections 507 and 34 IPC may
continue, the FIR insofar as it pertains to Section 195-A IPC is unsustainable
and cannot be allowed to proceed, as allowing it to continue would amount
to an abuse of the process of law and cause unnecessary harassment to the
applicants. Hence, the application under Section 482 CrPC is allowed to the
extent that the FIR shall be read as not including any offence under Section
195-A IPC . Investigation in respect of the remaining offences may continue
in accordance with law.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
