[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anjil Rajput vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 February, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5429
1 MCRC-37106-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 11th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 37106 of 2019
ANJIL RAJPUT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Lokendra Sharivastava - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Anjali Gayanani - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has
been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashment of FIR bearing Crime
No. 299/2019 registered at Police Station Kotwali Datia, District Datia, for
the offences punishable under Sections 364, 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal
Code and Sections 11/13 of the M.P. Dakaiti Evam Vyapharan Prabhavit
Kshetra Adhiniyam (MPDVPK Act), along with all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom.
2. As per the prosecution case, the complainant, Jaswant Kushwah,
lodged a report stating that he is a resident of Village Badoni and a B.Sc.
student. He had earlier completed his schooling at the Government School in
Village Badoni, where Deeksha Rajput, also a resident of the same village,
studied with him. Their acquaintance began in Class 10 and gradually
developed into a romantic relationship. Owing to their mutual affection, they
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5429
2 MCRC-37106-2019
solemnized marriage according to Hindu rites and customs at Pitambara
Temple. Thereafter, he took Deeksha with him to Jhansi. On 12.06.2019 at
about 9:00 PM, while returning from Jhansi and upon reaching Dantre Ki
Nariya, a Bolero vehicle bearing registration No. MP-04/CW-1969 allegedly
arrived at the spot. It is alleged that Anjul Rajput, the present petitioner,
along with Santosh Rajput, Kamal Rajput and four other persons, alighted
from the vehicle, forcibly pushed both the complainant and Deeksha into the
Bolero, assaulted the complainant with shoes, and took them near Rawatpura
Sarkar College, Datia, to a secluded place. There, they allegedly assaulted
him with kicks, fists and belts, throttled him, and abused and threatened him
with dire consequences if he did not leave Deeksha. Thereafter, they
allegedly put him in the Bolero and proceeded towards Badoni while
restraining Deeksha. It is further alleged that between Datia and Badoni, the
police intercepted the vehicle and rescued the complainant from their
custody. It is also stated that at the time of the alleged abduction from Dantre
Ki Nariya, several persons were present at the spot and witnessed the
incident. On the basis of these allegations, the aforesaid FIR was registered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to the
registration of the impugned FIR, Badri Prasad, father of Deeksha and elder
brother of the present petitioner, had lodged a missing person report at Police
Station Badoni on 12.06.2019 at 19:17 hours regarding the disappearance of
his daughter. It is contended that being aggrieved by the same, respondent
No. 2 maliciously got the aforesaid FIR registered against the petitioner. It is
further submitted that the petitioner, being a family member of Deeksha,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5429
3 MCRC-37106-2019
only intervened upon learning that respondent No. 2 had enticed and taken
her away, and that with the consent of respondent No. 2, he persuaded and
brought Deeksha back.
4. It is further contended that the petitioner advised Deeksha that
respondent No. 2 was underage and had not attained the legally prescribed
age of 21 years for marriage, and therefore it would be appropriate to
solemnize a lawful marriage before residing together. According to the
petitioner, aggrieved by such advice, respondent No. 2 lodged the impugned
FIR out of resentment. It is also submitted that subsequently, when Deeksha
informed her family members of her desire to reside with respondent No. 2,
the petitioner did not oppose her decision and at present Deeksha is residing
with respondent No. 2. It is further argued that the essential ingredients of the
offence under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code are conspicuously absent
in the present case.
5. It is further submitted that in the statements of the
complainant/respondent No. 2 and Deeksha recorded under Section 164 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, they have stated that the petitioner and other
co-accused persons had merely made them sit in the Bolero vehicle and
advised them, and that no assault was committed. On these grounds, it is
prayed that the present petition be allowed and the impugned FIR, along
with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, be quashed.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the
petition and submits that the FIR as well as the material collected during
investigation clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offences and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5429
4 MCRC-37106-2019
make out a prima facie case against the present petitioner, thereby warranting
trial. It is contended that the allegations in the FIR specifically attribute
active participation to the petitioner in forcibly intercepting the complainant
and Deeksha, compelling them to sit in the vehicle, wrongfully restraining
them, and extending threats and intimidation, which squarely attract the
offences alleged. It is argued that the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon'ble
Court is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and not to stifle
legitimate prosecution at the threshold when the allegations disclose a prima
facie case. Hence, the petition being devoid of merit deserves to be
dismissed.
7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. The scope and ambit of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is well settled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has laid down illustrative categories
wherein such power can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of the
Court or to secure the ends of justice. One of the categories enumerated
therein is where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if
taken at their face value and accepted in entirety, do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
9. In the present case, the admitted factual backdrop reveals that
Deeksha and the complainant were known to each other for several years and
had solemnized marriage of their own volition. The record further reflects
that a missing person report had been lodged by Deeksha's father prior to the
registration of the impugned FIR. The statements of the complainant and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5429
5 MCRC-37106-2019
Deeksha recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which form part of the charge-
sheet, assume significance. In their said statements, they have not supported
the allegations of assault or forcible abduction in the manner alleged in the
FIR. They have stated that they were made to sit in the vehicle and were
advised by family members, and no specific overt act of assault has been
attributed to the petitioner.
10. For an offence under Section 364 IPC to be made out, there must
be kidnapping or abduction with the intention that the person may be
murdered or so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered. The
essential ingredient is the specific intention contemplated under the
provision. Even if the allegations in the FIR are accepted in entirety, there is
no material to indicate any such intention on the part of the petitioner. The
entire genesis of the incident appears to stem from a familial dispute arising
out of the marriage of Deeksha with the complainant.
11. Similarly, the ingredients of Sections 294 and 506 IPC are not
substantiated by any independent material so as to prima facie establish
intentional insult in a public place or criminal intimidation of the nature
alleged. The invocation of Sections 11/13 of the MPDVPK Act also appears
to be misconceived in absence of any material to show that the alleged act
falls within the mischief of the said special enactment.
12. It is trite law that at the stage of considering a petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court is not required to conduct a meticulous
examination of evidence; however, where the uncontroverted allegations and
the material on record do not disclose the essential ingredients of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5429
6 MCRC-37106-2019
offences alleged, allowing the prosecution to continue would result in abuse
of the process of law.
13. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case,
particularly the nature of the dispute, the statements recorded under Section
164 Cr.P.C., and the absence of material disclosing the essential ingredients
of the offences alleged, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
continuation of the criminal proceedings against the present petitioner would
amount to abuse of the process of Court and would not serve the ends of
justice.
14. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR bearing Crime No.
299/2019 registered at Police Station Kotwali Datia, District Datia, for the
offences under Sections 364, 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 11/13 of the MPDVPK Act, along with all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom, insofar as they relate to the present petitioner,
are hereby quashed.
No order as to costs.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
