[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sonu Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 February, 2026
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4767
1 MCRC-1578-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 17 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 1578 of 2026
SONU KUMAR SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Singh Kaurav - Advocate with Shri Neeraj Sharma - Advocate for the
petitioner.
Shri Sunit Kapoor - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
The present petition under section 528 of BNSS, 2023 is filed for quashing
of FIR registered at Crime no. 424/2025 dated 05.09.2025 at Police Station -
Nanakheda , District - Ujjain for the offence punishable under section 296,
115(2), 351(3) and 333 of BNS, 2023.
2. The exposition of facts giving rise to present petition is as under :
Praveen Sharma reported to P.S. Nanakheda, Distt. Ujjain that on
05.09.2025, he was at his home. Sonu Sharma entered his house and abused
him in filthy language and demanded repayment of loan amount. Praveen
Sharma refused to pay the loan amount saying that no outstanding amount
remains and objected to his abuses. Sonu Sharma slapped him. Deepak and
Ranjeet intervened and rescued him. Sonu Sharma threatened to kill him.
On such allegations, P.S. Nanakheda registered FIR for offence punishable
u/s 296, 115(2), 351(3) and 333 of BNS, 2023 against the petitioner. The
final report has been submitted on completion of investigation.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4767
2 MCRC-1578-2026
3. The FIR is assailed in the petition on following grounds :
i) The present FIR is based on a concocted story and has been lodged with
an intent to create pressure on the petitioner.
ii) The dispute between the petitioner and the complainant is purely of
civil nature which has been given colour of criminal prosecution.
iii) Neither, there is any independent witness to the alleged incident nor any
medical evidence is available to substantiate the injury suffered by the
complainant.
iv) Complainant, in his statement, had admitted that he had lodged false
report against petitioner. A copy of statement recorded by petitioner is
submitted with the petition.
On these grounds, it is requested that the FIR bearing Crime no. 424/2025
registered at the Police station, Nanakheda be quashed with all consequential
proceedings.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in addition to the grounds, referring to
Annexure A-2 i.e. the complaint dated 28.08.2025 submits that the complainant
Praveen Sharma has stated that Sonu Sharma is his friend, therefore, there is no
possibility of house tress-pass. False FIR is lodged against the petitioner over
transaction of loan, which is substantiated by the recording submitted alongwith
certificate of the petitioner under Section 63(b) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,
2023. The FIR against the petitioner deserves to be quashed.
5. Per-contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the petition and contended
that the contents of FIR clearly make out the alleged offence. The petition is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4767
3 MCRC-1578-2026
meritless and deserves to be dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. The Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal , reported
i n 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
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4767
4 MCRC-1578-2026
(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)
8 . In the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Vs State of Maharashtra reported
in2021 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.
9. 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 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, the High Court should not appreciate the evidence and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4767
5 MCRC-1578-2026
its truthfulness or sufficiency inasmuch as it is the function of the trial court.
10. The material on record is examined in light of aforestated propositions of
law. The veracity and effect of digitally recorded statement of complainant will be
considered at the trial. This defence material cannot be considered at this stage
without proper proof.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
