[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagdish Parihar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 February, 2026
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4769
1 MCRC-37294-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 17th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 37294 of 2025
JAGDISH PARIHAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anurag Jain - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Sunit Kapoor - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 528 of The Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been
filed for quashing of FIR pertaining to Crime No.378/2025 registered by the
Police Station Industrial Area Ratlam, District - Ratlam for offence
punishable under section(s) 352, 115(2), 296, 351(3) & 3(5) of BNS, 2023
and the charge sheet with all consequential proceedings thereto.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in addition to the grounds
mentioned in the petition, contended that there is matrimonial discard
between Anita and her husband Mukesh (Respondent no.2). Mukesh had
quarrel and assaulted Sandeep Parihar, Anita, Hemlatha and Hiralal at a
marriage function in Radha Krishna Marriage Garden, District Ratlam in the
afternoon of 16.05.2025. Police Station, Industrial Area, Ratlam registered
FIR at crime No.377/2025 for offence under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3),
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4769
2 MCRC-37294-2025
and 3(5) of BNS, 2023 against Ashish, Mukesh Bhatia, Rahul Bhatia, Dhiraj
Ranbhabai and Chandabai. Thereafter,next day i.e. 17.05.2025, as a counter
blast complainant Mukesh lodged the impugned FIR of the same incident
against Jagdish Parihar, Sandeep Parihar, Vihesh Parihar, Malti Parihar,
Govardhan Parihar and Kailash Parihar. The impugned FIR is malafide and
lodged to pressurize the petitioners' party. No offence, as alleged, is
committed by the petitioner. The impugned FIR deserves to be quashed.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that the
accusation in the impugned FIR are duly verified by independent witnesses
Rakesh Katariya, BadrilalRaikwar and Rahul Bhatia as also by the medical
examination report. Both the parties had assaulted each other in the same
incident. Some delay in lodging the FIR is not sufficient reason to quash it.
4. Heard, rival contentions and perused the record.
5. Mukesh Bhatia reported to Police Station Industrial Area, Ratlam on
17.05.2025 that a day before i.e. on 16.05.2025, he went to Radhakrishna
Marriage Garden to attend a family function. The cases regarding
matrimonial dispute between him and his wife Anita, are pending at Court in
Sailana. The relatives of his estranged wife Anita, namely Sandeep, Jagdish
and Govardhanlal abused him using filthy language.They assaulted him with
fist blows. Vishesh and Malti Parihar also abused and assaulted him. When
his sister Chandabai intervened Jagdish Parihar assaulted her with fist blows.
On such allegations, Police Station Industrial Area, Ratlam, registered FIR at
Crime No.378/2025 for offence under Sections 352, 115(2), 296, 351(3), 3(5)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4769
3 MCRC-37294-2025
of BNS, 2023. The injured Mukesh and Chandabai were forwarded for
medico-legal examination.The Medical Officer reported two simple injuries
to Mukesh(1 linear contusion 7.00 cm x 0.5 cm, one abrasion 1.5 cm x 0.2
cm)and one contusion(10.00 cm x 5.00 cm) to Chandabai. The eyewitness of
incident, namely, Prakash, Chandrakala, Rahul and Rakesh supported the
accusation against the accused. The final report has been filedon conclusion
of investigation.
6 . The Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal,
reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 after an elaborate consideration of the matter
and after referring to its various earlier decisions, has observed in para 108 as
under:-
''108. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the
Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a
series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article
226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted
and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of
illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the
process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be
possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds
of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint,
even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the
evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but
constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4769
4 MCRC-37294-2025
officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the
Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion
that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the
Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where
the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal
grudge." (emphasis added)
7 . In the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Vs State of Maharashtra
reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315 , a three Judge Bench of the Supreme
Court reiterated the principles laid down in the case of Bhajanlal (supra) and
held that while the Courts ought to be cautious in exercising powers under
Section 482, they do have the power to quash the proceedings. The test is
whether or not, the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a
cognizable offence. The Court should not enter into merits of the allegations
or trench upon the lawful power of Investigating Agency to investigate into
the allegations involving commission of a cognizable offence.
8. In case of State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla, reported in (1996) 8
SCC 164, it was held that the inherent power of the court under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be very sparingly and cautiously
used only when the court comes to the conclusion that there would be
manifest injustice or there would be abuse of the process of the court, if such
power is not exercised. So far as the order of cognizance by a Magistrate is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4769
5 MCRC-37294-2025
concerned, the inherent power can be exercised when the allegations in the
first information report or the complaint together with the other materials
collected during investigation taken at their face value, do not constitute the
offence alleged. At that stage, it is not open for the court either to sift the
evidence or appreciate the evidence and come to the conclusion that no
prima facie case is made out. Again, in case of ARCI v. Nimra Cerglass
Technics (P) Ltd. reported in (2016) 1 SCC 348, the Supreme Court
reiterated the well-settled principle that while exercising inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 CrPC, it is not for the High Court to appreciate the
evidence and its truthfulness or sufficiency inasmuch as it is the function of
the trial court.
9. In matter ofC.S. Prasad Vs. C. Satya Kumar and others reported in
2026 INSC 39, it was held that-
25. Testing on the aforesaid parameters, we find that the complaint dated
08.01.2020 made by the appellant contains categorical allegations that respondent
Nos. 1 to 3, by abusing the advanced age and medical vulnerability of the
executants, caused the execution and registration of the three settlement deeds to
their unlawful advantage, and thereafter used such documents as genuine for the
purpose of deriving proprietary benefits. The allegations in the complaint also
disclose dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction as well as fabrication
and wrongful use of documents. At this stage, we must note that the High Court in
its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. is bound to take the allegations on
its face value. Whether these allegations can ultimately be proved is a matter strictly
within the province of the Trial Court.
*****
31. It is a settled proposition that when a factual foundation for prosecution exists,
criminal law cannot be short-circuited by invoking inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. Where allegations require adjudication on evidence, the
proper course is to permit the trial to proceed in accordance with law. In the present
case, the issues relating to the state of mind of the executants at the time of
execution of the settlement deeds, the role of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the execution
and the use of the settlement deeds, the existence of fraudulent intent, and the
manner in which proprietary advantage was obtained by them, all require a full-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4769
6 MCRC-37294-2025
fledged trial on evidence." (emphasis added)
10. The material on record is examined in light of aforestated propositions
of law. The FIR prima facie showsspecific allegations against the petitioner.
The eyewitness of incident, namely, Prakash, Chandrakala, Rahul and
Rakesh supported the accusation in their statement under Section 183 of
BNSS, 2023. Mere delay in lodging the FIR or existence of counter FIR of
the incident is not sufficient to scuttle the prosecution. The veracity of the
prosecution will be determined after evidence in the trial. This Court, while
considering quashing of FIR, cannot indulge into threadbare analysis of the
material on record.
11. In view of above discussion, the impugned FIR cannot be said to be
baseless, absurd, inherently improbable, malafide or maliciously intended to
wreck vengeance with the petitioner. Rather, the alleged offence is prima-
facie made out from the contents of FIR and the material collected during
investigation. Therefore, no case is made out to quash the impugned FIR and
subsequent proceedings in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.
12. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
C.C as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
sh
