[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhupendra Singh Bhati vs Special Police Establishment on 17 February, 2026
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4844
1 MCRC-39596-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
ON THE 17th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 39596 of 2025
BHUPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Versus
SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT
Appearance:
Shri Rajendra Kumar Mishra with Shri Yashpal Singh Sisodiya -
Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Prasanna Prasad - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla
This petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been preferred for
quashment of criminal proceedings registered at Crime No.211/2012, by
Special Police Establishment Lokayukt, Indore, District Indore against the
applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Facts of the case are that the applicant was working as Chief
Executive Officer under the Madhya Pradesh Anusuchit Jati Vitt Vikas
Nigam. He was posted at Bhopal in 2012, when search was conducted by the
respondent at the house of applicant on 14.10.2012. The respondent
registered an offence bearing no.211/2012, under Sections 13(1)(e) and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4844
2 MCRC-39596-2025
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The respondent seized
various documents, ornaments. The bank accounts of the applicant and his
family members were also freezed. The respondent sought sanction to
prosecute the applicant, as is mandatorily required, after almost 4 years
through their memo dated 10.06.2016. The State has prescribed a detailed
procedure in respect of grant of sanction. The competent authority by
communication dated 24.11.2016, declined sanction to the prosecution to
proceed against the applicant. Thereafter by yet another order dated
18.7.2019, the sanction for prosecution was granted against the applicant.
However, after order dated 24.11.2016 whereby, sanction was refused, the
applicant filed W.P.No.3025/2018, before the Principal Seat, seeking
quashment of criminal proceedings on the ground of delay. Since a new
order of sanction dated 18.7.2019 came into being, applicant assailed it by
filing W.P. No.15660/2019, before the Principal Seat. The said W.P. was
dismissed as withdrawn on 30.11.2019. Liberty was reserved to the applicant
to raise all legal issues before the trial Court against the said sanction order.
Applicant filed the application and raised various grounds against the
sanction order. The prosecution filed its detailed reply. The Court below by
impugned order dated 28.2.2020, rejected the application. This order was
called in question in the first round before this Court in MCRC
No.12760/2020 which was decided on 12/02/2021. This Court set aside the
said order dated 28/02/2020 and directed the Court below to take a fresh
decision on the application. In turn, the Court below has considered the
application and passed the impugned order dated 14.09.2021, which was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4844
3 MCRC-39596-2025
again challenged by the applicant by filing M.Cr.C. No.47557/2021 and the
same was allowed vide order dated 01.10.2021 and the Court below was
directed to hear the parties afresh and pass a fresh order in accordance
with law before proceeding further. The trial Court considered the
application regarding validity of sanction, again and call for the record of the
employer of the applicant and examined the same. The applicant again filed
M.Cr.C No.48523/2022. However, the said petition was dismissed as
withdrawn with liberty to the applicant to raise all the grounds before the
competent authority. The Competent Authority allowed the application vide
order dated 11/3/2025.
3. Counsel for the applicant submitted that though at present, the
applicant stands discharged by the trial Court as the sanction for prosecution
has been set aside with liberty to pass fresh order however the FIR still exists
and, therefore, prayer for quashment of the FIR be considered. He argued
that prima facie no case is made out for disproportionate property as per FIR
itself on its face value. According to the prosecution case, the difference of
the disproportionate property is Rs.25,25,964/- which is 18.8% and,
therefore, the offences under Section 13(1)(e) and Section 13(2) of the P.C
Act were registered. He vehemently argued that there is arithmetical mistake
in calculation in different heading like the educational expenses, calculation
of salary loan amount etc. The income of the son has been erroneously
included in the disproportionate assets. He further argued that even the
vehicle which was in the name of some other person has been counted in the
disproportionate assests of the applicant therefore, the FIR deserves to be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4844
4 MCRC-39596-2025
quashed. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the judgment
passed by the Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Bhiarilal & Anr. vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. passed in Writ Petition (CRL.) No.123/2023 and
other connected petitions.
4. Shri Prassnna Prasad learned counsel for the non applicant argued
that the sanction was quashed by the trial Court. However, the liberty was
granted to the non applicants to conduct fresh investigation. The non
applicants have conducted fresh investigation and as per the fresh
investigation, the disproportionate asset of the applicant comes to 35% and
after obtaining necessary sanction, the non applicant is going to file charge-
sheet before the Court. He further argued that the applicant is disputing the
calculation of the non applicants but there is no arithmetical mistakes as
being argued. He contended that that prima facie, allegations as contained in
the FIR clearly demonstrates that there was 18.8% disproportionate asset
and, therefore, the FIR has been lodged. Thus, prima facie, material is there
and the arguments of counsel for the applicant regarding arthematical
mistakes in calculation and the documents referred by him, cannot be
considered. He argued that in the subsequent investigation, the statement has
been recorded and the documents which are part of the FIR have been got
verified with the statement of the persons concerned. In support of his
submission he relied on the following judgments on the point of appreciation
of evidence when the investigation is incomplete :-
A) State of M.P vs. Awadh Kumar Gupta reported in (2004) 1 SCC
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4844
5 MCRC-39596-2025
B) State of Tamil Nadu vs. R. Soundirarasu reported in (2023) 6 SCC
5. It is apposite to survey the judgments of the Court regarding scope
of interference for quashment of FIR under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In catena
of judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court has given guidelines for justifiable use
of powers given under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashment of FIR and
consequential proceedings. In para 102, in the case of State of Haryana and
others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 , the
Apex Court has issued following guidelines for invoking the inherent
powers, which are reproduced as under:-
"In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or
the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the following categories of cases are given by way of
illustration herein 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 channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formuale and to given 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 FIR 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 FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence,
no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4844
6 MCRC-39596-2025
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."
6. The Supreme Court in para 27 in the case of Amit Kapoor
vs. Ramesh Chander reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 has held as under:-
"27. Having discussed the scope of jurisdiction under these
two provisions i.e. Section 397 and Section 482 of the Code and
the fine line of jurisdictional distinction, now it will be appropriate
for us to enlist the principles with reference to which the courts
should exercise such jurisdiction. However, it is not only difficult
but is inherently impossible to state with precision such principles.
At best and upon objective analysis of various judgments of this
Court, we are able to cull out some of the principles to be
considered for proper exercise of jurisdiction, particularly, with
regard to quashing of jurisdiction, particularly, with regard to
quashing of charge either in exercise of jurisdiction under Section
397 or Section 482 of the Code or together, as the case may be:
27.1. Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court
under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more
due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers.
The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the
charge framed in terms of Section 228 of the Code should be
exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in
the rarest of rare cases.
27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the
uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case
and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the
offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and
inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4844
7 MCRC-39596-2025
a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence
are not satisfied then the Court may interfere.
27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No
meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering
whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of
framing of charge or quashing of charge. 27.4. Where the exercise
of such power is absolutely essential to prevent patent miscarriage
of justice and for correcting some grave error that might be
committed by the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High
Court should be loath to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle
the prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers.
27.5. Where there is an express legal bar enacted in any of
the provisions of the Code or any specific law in force to the very
initiation or institution and continuance of such criminal
proceedings, such a bar is intended to provide specific protection
to an accused.
27.6. The Court has a duty to balance the freedom of a person and
the right of the complainant or prosecution to investigate and
prosecute the offender.
27.7. The process of the court cannot be permitted to be used for
an oblique or ultimate/ulterior purpose.
27.8. Where the allegations made and as they appeared from the
record and documents annexed therewith to predominantly give
rise and constitute a "civil wrong" with no „element of
criminality‟ and does not satisfy the basic ingredients of a
criminal offence, the court may be justified in quashing the charge.
Even in such cases, the court would not embark upon the critical
analysis of the evidence.
27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to
observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials
on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the
basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the court is
concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether
they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the
process of court leading to injustice.
27.10. It is neither necessary nor is the court called upon to hold a
full fledged enquiry or to appreciate evidence collected by the
investigating agencies to find out whether it is a case of acquittal
or conviction.
27.11. Where allegations give rise to a civil claim and also amount
to an offence, merely because a civil claim is maintainable, does
not mean that a criminal complaint cannot be maintained.
27.12. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 228 and/or
under Section 482, the Court cannot take into consideration
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4844
8 MCRC-39596-2025
external materials given by an accused for reaching the conclusion
that no offence was disclosed or that there was possibility of his
acquittal. The Court has to consider the record and documents
annexed therewith by the prosecution.
27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of
continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly
satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation
of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The
Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide
admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an
opinion formed prima facie.
27.14. Where the charge-sheet, report under Section 173(2) of the
Code, suffers from fundamental legal defects, the Court may be
well within its jurisdiction to frame a charge.
27.15. Coupled with any or all of the above, where the Court finds
that it would amount to abuse of process of the Code or that the
interest of justice favours, otherwise it may quash the charge. The
power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae i.e. to do real and
substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts
exist.
27.16. These are the principles which individually and
preferably cumulatively (one or more) be taken into consideration
as precepts to exercise of extraordinary and wide plenitude and
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code by the High Court.
Where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down,
the courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the
proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have
not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is
substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence."
7. In the case of Supriya Jain Vs. State of Haryana & Anr.
[SLP No.3662/2023, dated 04/07/2021] , it has been held by the Apex Court
that while exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court cannot
take into consideration external materials given by an accused for reaching
the conclusion that no offence was disclosed or that there was possibility of
his acquittal. The Court has to consider the record and documents
annexed therewith by the prosecution. The Court should apply the test as to
whether uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4844
9 MCRC-39596-2025
the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not.
If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no
prudent person can even reach such a conclusion and where the basic
ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may
interfere.
8. In the case of State of M.P vs. Awadh Kumar Gupta reported in
(2004) 1 SCC 691 , the Court was considering the scope of interference under
Section 482 Cr.P.C after referring the various judgments held that the
appreciation of evidence is not permissible for quashment of proceedings. It
was held that even if the charge is framed, at this stage High Court cannot
appreciate the evidence but can evaluate material and documents on records
to the extent of its prima facie satisfaction about the existence of sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused, the Court held that quashing of
investigation and proceedings by High Court considering the documents
annexed to the petition held not proper. It is impermissible for the High
Court to look into the materials, that acceptability of which was essentially a
matter for trial. The order of quashment of FIR of High Court in proceedings
under Prevention of Corruption Act was set aside.
9. In the case of State of C.G vs. Aman Kumar Singh reported in
(2023) 6 SCC 768 , the Apex Court referred to the approach to be adopted by
the Court in corruption cases and held that principle of non interference is to
be followed by the Court in such cases, except in cases with very special
features. Relevant para 63 of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-
63. It seems that such note of caution did not have the desired
effect in all cases resulting in this Court, in its subsequent
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4844
10 MCRC-39596-2025
decisions, re-emphasising the need for the High Courts to bear in
mind the settled principle of law that whenever its powers are
invoked either under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section
482 CrPC for quashing a first information report/complaint, the
Courts would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to
the probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made
therein (emphasis supplied). We may, in this regard, profitably
refer to the decision of this Court while dealing with a case under
the PC Act in State of Maharashtra v. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri
reported in (1996) 1 SCC 542.
10. It is correct that the scope of interference with the order passed
under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. and the power of this court under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. in respect of quashment of FIR is very limited. The Apex Court in
the case of Dharambeer Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and another
[SLP (CRI) No. 1500 of 2024] reported in 2024 INSC 583 has held as
under:-
15. This Court in a series of judgments has held that while
exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973, the High Court is not supposed to hold a
mini trial. A profitable reference can be made to the judgment in
the case of CBI Vs. Aryan Singh (2023 SCC Online SC 379).
Relevant paragraph from the judgment is extracted here under :
"Para 10....As per the cardinal principle of law, at the
stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal
proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the
mini trial.
At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court has a very
limited jurisdiction and is required to consider "whether
any sufficient material is available to proceed further
against the accused for which the accused is required to
be tried or not."
11. Thus, the court cannot conduct the mini-trial. The court is only
required to see that on the basis of the allegations levelled in the charge sheet
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4844
11 MCRC-39596-2025
and the material collected by the prosecution agency, prima facie the case
against the accused person said to have been made out. Where the material
placed before the court discloses grave suspicion against the accused, the
court will frame the charges and proceed with the trial. At the time of
framing of charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be
gone into. Specially in the cases of trial under the provision of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, where there are several accused arrayed with the aid of
Section 120B, one of the accused cannot be discharged by examining his
singular conduct at the stage of framing of charges. Otherwise, it would be
very difficult for the prosecution to complete the chain of events with the
role attributable to each and every accused assigned in the charge sheet. Any
adverse findings or observations on the merit of the case given by this court
on the merit of the case would affect the trial of applicant(s) before the
Special Judge.
12. In the light of the enunciation of aforesaid judgments, we examine
the facts and submission of learned counsel for the parties. The submission
of learned counsel for the applicant that there is arithmetical mistake is
highly disputed by the counsel for the respondent. They submitted that the
calculation is based on the material. Learned counsel for the applicant
pointed out calculation mistakes on the basis of document of the petition
regarding the educational expenses, calculation of salary loan amount and
inclusion of salary of son in the disproportionate assets. However, the same
cannot be adjudicated without referring to the documents of both the parties
which would amount to considering the prosecution case and defence further
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4844
12 MCRC-39596-2025
in view of the subsequent development that the applicant has already been
discharged as the order of sanction has been set aside by the trial Court with
liberty to the non applicant to pass fresh order in accordance with the law.
The investigation has been carried out and as per the respondent, the
difference of disproportionate property is more than 35%.
Therefore, in the light of principles of law
propounded by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments for use of inherent
powers of the Court in the instant case when the material which has been
mentioned hereinabove is available on record against the applicant, no case
for quashment of FIR using inherent powers as contained earlier under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and now under Section 528 of BNSS is made out and
also cases relied upon by the applicant in para-3 & 7 of the judgment are also
of no consequences.
13. Accordingly, present application stands dismissed.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE JUDGE
PK
