Mohit Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 February, 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16588

1 MCRC-47914-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
ON THE 23rd OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 47914 of 2021
MOHIT SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Sankalp Kochar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri B.D. Singh Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

WITH
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 48211 of 2021
NRIPENDRA SINGH PATEL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Udaynand Pandey - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri B.D. Singh - Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 52662 of 2021
MANISH SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Eshaan Datt - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri B.D. Singh - Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

ORDER

Since, the petitions arise out of the same FIR and involve identical questions of fact and law, and the reliefs sought therein are also substantially

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16588

2 MCRC-47914-2021 the same, this Court deems it appropriate to decide all the matters by a common order.

2. These petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 have been filed by the petitioners seeking quashment of the impugned FIR dated 26.07.2020 bearing Crime No. 644/2020 registered at Police Station Maihar, District Satna (M.P.) for offences punishable under Sections 8/20 of the NDPS Act, Section 307, 353 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, along with the consequential charge-sheet. Alternatively, the petitioners have further prayed for direction to the State authorities to appoint an independent agency to conduct re- investigation of the said crime.

3. As per the prosecution story, on 26.07.2020, the police authorities of Police Station Maihar received information from a reliable source that co- accused Anup Jaiswal @ Jassa along with other co-accused persons including petitioners were transporting a huge quantity of contraband (Ganja) on the Rampur Road towards Maihar. After receipt of information, efforts were made to obtain a search warrant from the SDO (Police). On account of non-availability of the said officer, telephonic instructions were received and necessary entry was made in the Rojnamcha Sanha. Thereafter, the police party proceeded to intercept the vehicles. It is alleged that upon tracing the vehicles, cross firing was opened on the police party. The police managed to stop the vehicles and conducted search, during which a total quantity of 94 kilograms and 300 grams of Ganja was seized from different vehicles along with cash of Rs.2,12,00,000/- and arms from various accused

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16588

3 MCRC-47914-2021 persons. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court.

Arguments advanced by Adv. Shri Sankalp Kochar in M.Cr. C No. 47914/2021 :

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated due to enmity and malicious intent. There are so many procedural irregularities in investigation. It is submitted by the counsel that statements of seizure witness Umakant Dwivedi who weighed the contraband have not been recorded. There are discrepancies in the timing of Rojnamcha entries and preparation of spot panchnama. It has been further argued that the present petitioner has been implicated in the case at hand only on the anvil of information given by co-accused Anup Jaiswal @ Jassa who had some personal grudge on account of property dispute. CCTV footage and petrol pump entries allegedly demonstrate that the vehicle was 95 kilometers away shortly before the alleged seizure. The petitioner as well as other co-accused persons were allegedly arrested from their residential premises and not from the spot. Investigation was carried out maliciously and requires re-investigation by an independent agency. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neetu Kumar Nagaich v. State of Rajasthan {(2020) 16 SCC 777}, Babubhai v. State of Gujarat {(2010) 12 SCC 254}, Dharmpal Vs. State of Haryana & others {(2016) 4 SCC 160} , Zahira Sheikh Habibulla H.Sheikh Vs. State of Gujrat {(2004) 4 SCC 158}, Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali @ Deepak and others {(2013) 5 SCC 762}, State of Punjab Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation {(2011) 9 SCC

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16588

4 MCRC-47914-2021 182}, and the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Sunil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (2020) SCC OnLine Raj 2346.

Arguments advanced by Adv. Shri Udaynand Pandey in M.Cr. C No. 48211/2021 :

5. In addition to arguments advanced by Adv. Shri Sankalp Kochar in M.Cr.C No. 47914/2021, Shri Pandey submits that the Impugned F.IR. is lodged with malicious intention and ulterior motive which is liable to be quashed in the light of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State Of Haryana and Ors vs Bhajan Lal And Ors. {AIR 1992 SC 604}, in the present case the manner of Investigation violation of various statutory provisions and furthermore carried out by the Investigating Official is in blatant the investigation has been carried out with unconcerned and uninspiring performance. He submits that even if the entire prosecution story is treated to be gospel truth, no-case is culled out against the applicant and the registration of FIR and continuance of any further criminal proceedings is a gross abuse of process of law.

Arguments advanced by Adv. Shri Eshaan Datt in M.Cr. C No. 52662/2021 :

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner - Manish Singh, while adopting the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the other petitioners, further supplemented the arguments by elaborating upon certain additional factual and legal aspects peculiar to the present petitioner. He submits that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner in fact, on 26.07.2020, the T.I of Police Station-Nagod namely

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16588

5 MCRC-47914-2021 R.P. Singh and other police personnel came in the house of the petitioner to take the petitioner alongwith them for interrogation. The petitioner has been arrayed falsely in this case and there is no substantial material available against the petitioner to connect him with the crime.

Submissions by Shri B.D. Singh - Additional Advocate General:

7. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner has a long criminal antecedent. The investigation has been conducted in accordance with law. The contentions raised by the petitioner are factual in nature and pertain to defence, which can be raised during trial. No case is made out for exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He further argued that the FIR clearly discloses that upon receipt of credible information, the police party proceeded after making necessary Rojnamcha entry and intercepting the vehicles recovered 94 kilograms and 300 grams of Ganja which constitutes commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. The allegations further disclose cross-firing upon the police party and recovery of arms and ammunition, thereby attracting Sections 307 and 353 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. He submitted that after due investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded and charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. At this stage, the Court is only required to examine whether prima facie offences are disclosed which is clearly established from the material collected during investigation. He prays for dismissal of petition.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16588

6 MCRC-47914-2021

9. The scope of interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is well settled. The inherent powers of the High Court are to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in cases where the allegations in the FIR or charge-sheet do not disclose any offence or where continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of Court. At this stage, the Court is required to examine whether prima facie material exists to proceed against the accused. The Court cannot embark upon a detailed appreciation of evidence or adjudicate disputed questions of fact.

10. In the present petitions, the FIR and charge-sheet disclose seizure of commercial quantity of contraband (94.300 kg of Ganja) and huge cash of Rs. 2,12,00,000/-, along with allegations of use of firearms and obstruction of public servants in discharge of their duties. The material collected during investigation prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offences under the NDPS Act, IPC and Arms Act.

11. The discrepancies highlighted by the petitioners regarding timing of panchnama, Rojnamcha entries, CCTV footage, petrol pump entries, and alleged non-recording of statement of a witness are essentially matters of factual defence. These aspects require appreciation of evidence and cross- examination of witnesses, which can only be undertaken by the Trial Court. The contention that the statement of a particular witness has not been recorded or filed does not ipso facto vitiate the entire prosecution case at this

stage. It is open to the defence to seek appropriate remedy before the Trial Court in accordance with law. Similarly, the plea that the accused were arrested from their homes and not from the spot is a disputed question of fact

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16588

7 MCRC-47914-2021 which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

12. So far as the prayer for re-investigation by an independent agency is concerned, such power is to be exercised in exceptional circumstances where investigation is shown to be tainted, biased or in violation of statutory provisions. Mere allegation of malafide or animosity, without cogent material of sterling quality, is not sufficient to direct re- investigation.

13. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner pertain to cases where investigation was demonstrably unfair or tainted. The facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable and do not disclose such exceptional circumstances warranting interference. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioners have criminal antecedents as reflected from the record. The allegations involve serious offences including commercial quantity of narcotics and attempt to murder. At this preliminary stage, quashing of proceedings would not be justified.

14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the FIR and charge-sheet disclose prima facie commission of cognizable offences. The contentions raised by the petitioners pertain to disputed questions of fact and defence. No case is made out for exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C as well as no exceptional circumstance exists for directing re-investigation by an independent agency.

15. Accordingly, the petitions being devoid of merit are hereby dismissed.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16588

8 MCRC-47914-2021

16. It is, however, clarified that any observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and shall not prejudice the trial on merits.

(HIMANSHU JOSHI) JUDGE

Jasleen