[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chitrangi Iyer vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 February, 2026
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10239
1 WP-29100-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 4 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 29100 of 2024
CHITRANGI IYER
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashok Kumar Jain - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Hitendra Singh - G.A. for the State.
ORDER
Heard on the question of maintainability in view of the objection taken by
the State.
2 . The petitioner by filing this petition has sought quashment of First
Information Report dated 27.5.2024 registered against the petitioner vide Crime
No. 220 of 2024 at Police Station Tilwara, Jabalpur for the offences punishable
under Sections 420, 409, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and its
consequential proceedings.
3 . It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that even if during
pendency of the present petition, the charge-sheet in the matter has been filed and
the charges have been framed by the trial Court, still the present petition would be
maintainable and in support of the aforesaid contention, the counsel has placed
strong reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Anand Kumar Mohatta &
another Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home and another - (2019) 11
SCC 706 .
4. It is further contended that the respondents have placed reliance on the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10239
2 WP-29100-2024
decision of the Apex Court in Rajendra Bihari Lal and another Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and others - 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2265, however, the said decision
i s per incuriam as in the said decision, previous decision of Anand Kumar
Mohatta (supra) was not taken note of. It is further submitted that a judicial order
which does not take into consideration the previous judicial order renders per
incuriam. In support of the aforesaid contention, the counsel has placed reliance
on the decision of the Apex Court in Sundeep Kumar Bafna Vs. State of
Maharashtra and another - (2014) 16 SCC 623.
5. In view of the law laid down in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Judicial Magistrate -
(1998) 5 SCC 749, the writ petition or even petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
seeking quashment of proceedings including the FIR as well as charge-sheet is
maintainable even if subsequently the order of framing of charge is passed.
6 . On the other hand, the counsel for the State submits that the present
petition is liable to be dismissed as in view of the law laid down by the Apex
Court in Rajendra Bihari Lal (supra) and Neeta Singh & others Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh & others - SLP (Crl.) No. 13578/2024 decided on 15.10.2025, the
petition is not maintainable. Undisputedly, in the case in hand, after filing of the
petition, the charges have been framed against the petitioner by the trial Court vide
order dated 23.7.2025 and as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in
paragraph 88 in Rajendra Bihari Lal (supra) , the petition is liable to be dismissed
as now the petitioner is required to assail the order of framing of charge and the
First Information Report in question cannot be gone into at this stage.
7. No other point is argued or pressed by the counsel for the parties.
8. Heard submissions and perused the record.
9 . On perusal of record, it reveals that in the case in hand, the First
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10239
3 WP-29100-2024
Information Report was lodged against the petitioner on 27.5.2024. This petition
was filed on 21.9.2024. During pendency of the present petition, charge-sheet was
submitted before the trial Court on 27.9.2024 and thereafter charges were framed
by the trial Court on 23.7.2025. It is, thus, apparent that in the case in hand after
lodging of the First Information Report as well as filing of the charge-sheet, now
there exists a judicial order by which the charges have been framed. Upon framing
of charge, there is application of judicial mind in the case and therefore, validity
of that order is required to be assailed separately on the ground on which the
petitioner seeks to assail the same.
10. The Apex Court in the case of Neeta Singh (supra) held in paragraph 19
as under :-
"19. We, therefore, hold that the High Court was
absolutely right in dismissing the Writ Petition as
infructuous noticing that a judicial order had
intervened between presentation of the Writ
Petition and consideration thereof. No substantial
question of law is involved and hence the special
leave petition stands dismissed."
11. Aforesaid view taken by the Apex Court in Neeta Singh (supra) has
been reiterated by the Apex Court in Rajendra Bihari Lal (supra) . The Apex Court
in Rajendra Bihari Lal (supra) in paragraph 88 observed as under:-
"88. We find it apt to mention that an accused
person may approach the High Court for quashing
of the FIR and chargesheet under Article 226 of
the Constitution till the time cognizance on the
chargesheet has not been taken by the
jurisdictional Trial Court. Once cognizance is
taken, thereafter the accused person may
approach the High Court under Section 528 of the
B.N.S.S. (earlier Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.) at
any stage of the proceedings for quashing of the
FIR and the consequential proceedings on the
ground of abuse of the process of law. (See:
Order dated 15.10.2024 in SLP (Crl.)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10239
4 WP-29100-2024
13578/2024, Neeta Singh v. The State of Uttar
Pradesh)"
12. Similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in Pradnya Pranjal
Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra - 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1948 wherein the Apex
Court in paragraph 8 observed 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 14th 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 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. P.C., the Allahabad High
Court was right in holding the writ petition under
Article 226 to have been rendered infructuous."
13. It is apparent that after the filing of the present petition, subsequent
events have taken place. Now there exists a judicial order by which charges have
been framed against the petitioner, therefore, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the
said order of framing of charges, she is required to assail the same in separate
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10239
5 WP-29100-2024
proceedings. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that upon passing of the
order of framing of charge dated 23.7.2025, this petition seeking quashment of the
First Information Report is not maintainable, inasmuch as the order of framing of
charge is now required to be assailed by the petitioner in terms of the remedy
which is available to her on the ground on which the petitioner seeks to question
the validity of the same.
14. Resultantly, the petition stands dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
PB
