[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anoop Mishra vs Kamal Kumar Baiga on 23 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17605
1 MCRC-19893-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 23rd OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 19893 of 2019
ANOOP MISHRA AND OTHERS
Versus
KAMAL KUMAR BAIGA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kumar Shukla - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Satya Narayan Mishra - Advocate for respondent No.1.
Smt. Papiya Ghosh - PL for State.
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 has been instituted by the applicants invoking the inherent jurisdiction
of this Court for quashment of the order dated 12.03.2019 passed by the
learned Special Judge, Jabalpur in UN CR/1201/2017, whereby cognizance
has been taken against the applicants for the offences punishable under
Sections 294, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(1)
(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (herein after Act 1989). The prayer is founded on the
assertion that the impugned order is a result of mechanical exercise of
jurisdiction, bereft of the foundational requirements of law, and that the
continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to gross abuse of the
process of Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17605
2 MCRC-19893-2019
2. The factual matrix reveals that the respondent/complainant had
approached the learned Special Judge by filing a private complaint under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking directions for registration of an FIR against
the present applicants alleging commission of offences under Sections 294,
323, 506-II, 195A IPC and the provisions of the Act 1989. The substratum of
the complaint rests upon a transaction of sale of an immovable property,
wherein it is alleged that an agreement dated 29.01.2016 was executed
between the parties for purchase of a plot for a total consideration of
Rs.2,80,000/-, which was duly paid by the complainant. It is the allegation
that despite receipt of the entire consideration, the applicants failed to
execute the sale deed and, upon being confronted, subjected the complainant
to abuse and intimidation.
3. The complaint further proceeds to allege that on 30.08.2017, during
the pendency of earlier proceedings between the parties, the applicants
intercepted the complainant, assaulted him, and hurled caste-based abuses
while pressurizing him to withdraw the pending case, accompanied by
threats of dire consequences. It is borne out from the record that initially,
upon a preliminary enquiry, the police did not find sufficient material to
constitute an offence under the Act 1989. Thereafter, the learned Special
Judge, instead of directing registration of FIR, proceeded to record the
statements of the complainant and his witnesses under Sections 200 and 202
Cr.P.C., and eventually took cognizance by the impugned order.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has strenuously contended that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17605
3 MCRC-19893-2019
entire prosecution is an abuse of the process of law, arising out of a purely
civil dispute which has been given a criminal colour. It is submitted that the
essential ingredients of the offences alleged, particularly those under the Act
1989, are conspicuously absent. The allegations of caste-based abuse are
stated to be vague, omnibus and lacking in material particulars, and do not
satisfy the statutory requirement of intentional insult or intimidation with the
intent to humiliate in a place within public view. It is further urged that the
police enquiry having not substantiated the allegations under the Act 1989,
the learned Trial Court ought to have exercised due circumspection before
proceeding to take cognizance. Reliance has been placed upon the
authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, as well as other judgments governing the scope of
interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to contend that the present case
squarely falls within the categories warranting quashment.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State has
opposed the petition contending that the complaint and the statements
recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. disclose a prima facie case
against the applicants. It is submitted that at the stage of cognizance, a
detailed appreciation of evidence is neither warranted nor permissible, and
the veracity of allegations is to be tested during trial. It is further contended
that the allegations of caste-based abuse and assault are specific in nature and
sufficient to attract the provisions invoked, and therefore, no interference is
called for.
6. This Court has given its thoughtful consideration to the rival
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17605
4 MCRC-19893-2019
submissions and has meticulously examined the record. The scope and ambit
of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are no
longer res integra. Such powers, though wide, are to be exercised sparingly,
with circumspection, and in the rarest of rare cases where the Court is
satisfied that the continuation of criminal proceedings would result in
miscarriage of justice or would amount to abuse of the process of law. The
guiding principles enunciated in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal continue to
hold the field and serve as a touchstone for determining the permissibility of
interference at the threshold.
7. In the present case, it is manifest that the genesis of the dispute lies in
a transaction of sale of immovable property. The allegations pertaining to
payment of consideration and failure to execute the sale deed, even if
accepted in their entirety, unmistakably point towards a civil dispute arising
out of an alleged breach of contract. The attempt to cloak such dispute with
criminal overtones, particularly by invoking serious penal provisions,
requires careful judicial scrutiny.
8. The subsequent allegations of assault, abuse and criminal intimidation,
when examined in the backdrop of the underlying civil dispute, appear to be
intrinsically connected to and emanating from the said dispute. A close and
meaningful reading of the complaint as well as the statements recorded under
Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. reveals that the allegations of caste-based
abuse are couched in general and omnibus terms, devoid of specific details
as to the exact words used, the context in which they were uttered, and most
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17605
5 MCRC-19893-2019
importantly, the presence of any element indicating that such utterances were
made in a place within public view with the intention to humiliate the
complainant on account of his caste.
9. It is trite law that for attracting the provisions of Sections 3(1)(r) and
3(1)(s) of the Act 1989, the allegations must disclose intentional insult or
intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. The absence of these
foundational ingredients renders the invocation of the said provisions legally
untenable. Mere use of abusive language, in the course of a private dispute,
without the requisite statutory intent and context, would not suffice to
constitute an offence under the Act.
10. Equally significant is the manner in which the learned Trial Court has
proceeded to take cognizance. The impugned order does not reflect due
application of judicial mind to the essential ingredients of the offences
alleged. There is no discussion as to how the requirements of the Act 1989
are satisfied, nor is there any indication that the Court has scrutinized the
allegations in the light of settled legal principles specially when the police,
upon preliminary enquiry, did not find material to substantiate the allegations
under the Act 1989. The order, thus, suffers from the vice of non-application
of mind and cannot be sustained in law.
11. Insofar as the offences under Sections 294, 323 and 34 IPC are
concerned, the allegations appear to be inextricably linked with the civil
dispute between the parties and do not, in the facts and circumstances of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17605
6 MCRC-19893-2019
case, disclose a clear and unambiguous commission of cognizable offences
warranting continuation of criminal proceedings. The FIR has been drafted
very cleverly in which the petitioners (partners) are shown to be present
together at the same time and place, one of whom is a scheduled caste
woman when these facts are taken into consideration it appears that the
possibility of the criminal machinery being set in motion as a tool for
exerting pressure and settling scores in a civil dispute cannot be lightly
brushed aside.
12. Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances, this Court
is of the considered opinion that the present case squarely falls within the
categories delineated in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal , particularly where
the allegations do not disclose the commission of any offence and where the
proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide and instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance.
13. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated
12.03.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge (Act 1989), Jabalpur in
UNCR/1201/2017, taking cognizance against the applicants, along with all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed.
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
@SM@
