Sanjay Garg vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2026 Latest Caselaw 2103 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sanjay Garg vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 February, 2026

Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke

Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7186

1 MCRC-58796-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 58796 of 2025
SANJAY GARG AND OTHERS

Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Shia Jitendra Kumar Sharma - Senior Advocate alongwith
Shri Satyapal Singh Solanki - Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Anjali Gyanani - Public Prosecutor for the State.

Shri Mohit Bhadoria - Advocate for the appeared for respondent No.2.

RESERVED ON :- 24/02/2026
DELIVERED ON : 27/02/2026
ORDER

The present petition has been filed by Petitioners No.1 and 2, namely, Sanjay Garg and Vinayak Garg, invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS/Section 482 of the CrPC, seeking quashment of FIR dated 26.10.2024, registered as Crime No.419 of 2024 at Police Station Jhansi Road, District Gwalior (M.P.), for offences punishable under Sections 109, 190, 191(2), 191(3), and 296 of the BNSS, 2023, and all consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom.

As per the prosecution story, the complainant, Deepak Singh Chauhan, son of late Indradev Singh Chauhan, aged 47 years, resident of Barua Pichhor, Jhansi Road, Gwalior, was admitted in the General Surgery Ward, Bed No.37, 4th Floor, JAH Gwalior. On 25.10.2024, at approximately 01:00

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7186

2 MCRC-58796-2025 hours, the complainant was at his farmhouse situated at Barua Pichhor when

the petitioners, Sanjay Garg and Vinayak Garg, along with Somitra Acharya, Sachin Kumar, Murari Sharma, and four to five unknown persons, arrived in a vehicle armed with sticks, rods, and firearms. The accused allegedly forcibly broke the boundary wall and the lock of the farmhouse gate adjoining Ideal College and entered the premises. On noticing the intrusion, the complainant, his brother Prakash, his daughter Aditi, and his son Krishna attempted to resist them. It was alleged that the accused verbally abused the complainant and his family, with Sanjay Garg directing others to commit murder. Vinayak Garg and his accomplices allegedly fired at the complainant and his family with a .315 bore rifle, while Sanjay Garg fired a 12-bore gun. Simultaneously, Somitra Acharya, Sachin Kumar, and others allegedly attacked the family with bricks and stones. As a result, the complainant sustained bullet injuries to the head and left side of the body, his brother Prakash sustained injuries to the left arm, hip, and back and his daughter Aditi sustained injuries to the left side of her neck. The family narrowly escaped death. The incident was reported to Jhansi Road Police Station, and a Dehati Nalasi was conducted at JAH Gwalior on the same day at 21:20 hours. Preliminary investigation revealed prima facie commission of offences under Sections 109, 190, 191(2), 191(3), 296, and other relevant provisions of the BNSS/IPC. The circumstances, as reported, suggested that the accused acted in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy, with alleged intent to commit murder, intimidate, and cause grievous harm to the complainant

and his family.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7186

3 MCRC-58796-2025

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the present FIR registered as Crime No. 419 of 2024 at Police Station Jhansi Road, District Gwalior, is wholly misconceived, malafide, and instituted with ulterior motives, as the allegations made by the complainant are based on vague and unverified statements, and no independent evidence exists to implicate the petitioners in the alleged offences. The FIR narrates a sensational account of criminal acts, including the use of firearms and assault, but upon careful examination, it is apparent that the allegations are exaggerated and do not disclose any cognizable offence that warrants criminal prosecution. The complainant has failed to specify the exact role of the petitioners in the alleged incident. The purported participation of the petitioners in a criminal conspiracy, as alleged in the FIR, is unsubstantiated and rests entirely on conjecture. There is no prima facie material that demonstrates the petitioners' intention to commit the offences attributed to them.

It was further submitted that the FIR appears to have been lodged with the intent to harass and intimidate, rather than to report a genuine crime. The dispute underlying the FIR is essentially civil in nature, arising out of alleged personal or property disagreements, and has been deliberately elevated into a criminal matter. Continuing proceedings based on such an FIR would amount to a manifest abuse of the process of law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335] has recognized that FIRs lodged for collateral or vexatious purposes can and ought to be quashed to prevent misuse of the criminal justice system.

It was further submitted that the alleged offences under Sections 109,

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7186

4 MCRC-58796-2025 190, 191(2), 191(3), and 296 of the BNSS require clear evidence of intent

and specific acts constituting abetment, false documentation, or criminal intimidation. The present FIR, however, is vague and non-specific, and does not satisfy the statutory threshold for initiation of criminal proceedings. The allegations, even if taken at face value, do not constitute a cognizable offence sufficient to warrant prosecution, as recognized in the decisions of this Hon'ble Court and the Supreme Court.

It was further submitted that the petitioners are residents of Gwalior, engaged in the automobile business for the last thirty years, and have earned goodwill and respectable status in society. The complainant, Deepak Singh Chauhan, was running a college under the Society "Riddheshwar Kunwar Maharaj Shiksha Prasar Samiti" at Barua Pichore, and had mortgaged the property with Allahabad Bank. Due to failure to repay the loan, the property was declared an NPA, and proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, were initiated. The bank subsequently executed an assignment agreement with Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd., which purchased the property through auction under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The registered sale deed dated 26-04-2019 confirms this transaction.

Despite the sale, the complainant failed to deliver possession of the property. Consequently, Encore Group filed an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the Collector, District Gwalior, who directed the Tehsildar and police authorities to ensure peaceful delivery of physical possession to the designated officer of Encore Group. Subsequently, the

petitioner, Sanjay Garg, purchased the property from Encore Group via a

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7186

5 MCRC-58796-2025 registered sale deed dated 26-08-2022, thereby becoming the lawful owner.

It was further submitted that the complainant, being a habitual defaulter, repeatedly obstructed possession, prompting Encore Group to file Writ Petition No. 8822/22 before this Court, which was allowed with clear directions to the Collector and Tehsildar to ensure delivery of possession. Despite multiple orders, the complainant continued to encroach upon the property, resulting in the filing of a contempt petition. After the appointment of a Court Commissioner, physical possession was finally handed over to Encore Group on 28-09-2024, and the Hon'ble Court disposed of the contempt petition on 04-10-2024. Thereafter, the petitioners were requested by Encore Group to secure the property and protect their assets. On 25-10- 2024, when the petitioners arrived at the property, the complainant, Deepak Singh Chauhan, unlawfully attempted to prevent entry, armed himself, and fired shots, threatening the petitioners. The petitioners fled the scene and immediately lodged an FIR at Police Station Jhansi Road, Gwalior, under Sections 125, 296, and 351(2) of BNSS, 2023. However, instead of reporting to the police, the complainant admitted himself to JAH Hospital, called the police, and arranged the registration of a false FIR dated 26-10-2024, alleging that the petitioners had attacked him with firearms.

It was further submitted that the FIR has been lodged with an ulterior motive, in collusion with other parties, to prevent the petitioners from enjoying their lawful possession of the property and the petitioners have been falsely implicated despite being bonafide purchasers and lawful owners,

and the allegations made against them are contrary to the documentary and

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7186

6 MCRC-58796-2025 audiovisual evidence available with the police, including photographs, video

footage, and DVR recordings. The complainant, on the other hand, has deliberately misrepresented facts, used firearms himself, and orchestrated the FIR to secure an unlawful advantage.

It was further submitted that this is a classic instance of a civil dispute being unnecessarily given a criminal color, as the entire controversy arose from possession and property rights over the mortgaged property, which were already been conclusively adjudicated in favor of the petitioners and Encore Group by the orders of this Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The complainant has exhausted all legal remedies and now resorts to creating a false criminal case to delay and obstruct lawful possession.

It was further submitted that the police have not conducted a fair and impartial investigation despite being in possession of clear evidence. The FIR is therefore not only baseless but also violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is the statutory duty of the police to investigate objectively, yet they have failed to act on the evidence that exonerates the petitioners. The complainant has intentionally misused the criminal law as a shield to retain possession of the property unlawfully.

In view of the above submissions, it was prayed that the present petiton be allowed and FIR No. 419/2024 dated 26-10-2024 registered at Police Station Jhansi Road, District Gwalior, and all consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom be quashed.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7186

7 MCRC-58796-2025 counsel for the complainant opposed the petition and prayed for its dismissal

submitting that the allegations contained therein clearly disclosed the commission of serious and cognizable offences involving the use of firearms, criminal intimidation, unlawful entry, and an attempt to cause fatal injuries to the complainant and his family members. It was contended that the FIR specifically attributes distinct roles to each of the accused persons, including the present petitioners, and that the prosecution version is duly supported by medical evidence showing gunshot injuries sustained by the complainant and other injured witnesses. The nature, location, and gravity of the injuries, as recorded in the medical examination reports, prima facie corroborate the allegation of firing with deadly weapons.

It was further submitted that during the course of investigation, the firearm allegedly used in the commission of the offence has been recovered. The weapon recovered is one that discharges live cartridges (bullets) and not merely pellets or "chharre," and the medical evidence indicates injuries consistent with bullet wounds rather than superficial pellet injuries. Thus, there is medical corroboration supporting the prosecution case regarding the use of a firearm capable of causing fatal injuries. This recovery and medical opinion lend further credence to the version set out in the FIR and negate the contention that the allegations are exaggerated or fabricated.

It was further submitted that the petitioners, along with other co- accused, arrived at the complainant's farmhouse during late night hours armed with deadly weapons, including a .315 bore rifle and a 12-bore gun,

forcibly broke open the boundary wall and gate, and entered the premises

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7186

8 MCRC-58796-2025 with clear criminal intent. The acts attributed to them demonstrate

premeditation and concert, thereby attracting the relevant provisions of the BNSS, 2023 relating to abetment, common intention, and criminal intimidation. The specific allegation that Sanjay Garg (petitioner No.1) exhorted the other accused to kill the complainant and that both petitioners fired upon the complainant and his family members cannot be dismissed as vague or omnibus allegations. These are serious accusations that require thorough investigation, including ballistic examination, forensic analysis, and recording of statements of eyewitnesses.

It was further argued that the defence sought to be raised by the petitioners, namely that the dispute is civil in nature and pertains to property and possession under SARFAESI proceedings, is wholly misconceived in the context of the present criminal case. Even assuming the existence of a civil dispute, the same does not entitle any party to forcibly enter the property or use firearms against the occupants. A civil dispute cannot provide justification for criminal acts involving violence and the use of lethal weapons. The settled legal position is that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely because a civil dispute is also involved, particularly when the allegations disclose the ingredients of cognizable offences.

It was further submitted that the investigation is still underway and that the investigating agency is in the process of collecting material evidence, including medical reports, forensic reports, ballistic reports, and statements of witnesses. At this preliminary stage, the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS/Section 482 of the CrPC ought not to be

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7186

9 MCRC-58796-2025 exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The Court, while considering a

petition for quashment of an FIR, is required to examine only whether the allegations, taken at face value, disclose the commission of an offence. It is impermissible to conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence or to adjudicate disputed questions of fact at this stage.

It was also contended that the plea of mala fide raised by the petitioners is a matter of evidence and cannot be decided in proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC. The complainant has suffered firearm injuries which stand medically corroborated, and the recovery of the weapon used in the offence further strengthens the prosecution case. The alternative version put forth by the petitioners, alleging fabrication or self-inflicted injury, is a disputed defence that can only be tested during investigation or trial and cannot form the basis for quashing the FIR at the threshold.

Emphasizing the gravity of the allegations, learned counsel submitted that the incident involved the firing of live bullets at close range, thereby endangering the lives of multiple persons, including family members of the complainant. Such serious accusations demand a complete and impartial investigation. Interference at this stage would amount to prematurely terminating the investigative process and would be contrary to settled principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. It was, therefore, prayed that the petition be dismissed and that the investigating agency be permitted to proceed in accordance with law.

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the entire

prosecution story is a deliberate fabrication designed to falsely implicate the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7186

10 MCRC-58796-2025 applicants and to obstruct their lawful possession of the property. It was

contended that the injuries allegedly sustained by the complainant are self- inflicted and have been cleverly portrayed as gunshot wounds caused by the applicants. According to learned counsel, the surrounding circumstances, timing of hospitalization, and conduct of the complainant clearly indicate manipulation of facts to give a criminal colour to what is essentially a property dispute.

It was further submitted that the weapon allegedly recovered during investigation is a firearm that discharges pellets ("chharre") and not solid bullets. Learned counsel argued that the nature of the weapon itself creates serious doubt about the prosecution version, particularly when the medical narrative attempts to portray the injuries as grievous firearm injuries. It was contended that no conclusive ballistic or forensic report has yet been produced to establish that the recovered weapon was used in the alleged incident or that it is directly connected to the injuries sustained by the complainant. In the absence of scientific linkage between the weapon and the injuries, mere recovery of a firearm cannot be treated as incriminating evidence.

Learned counsel emphasized that the medical documents do not conclusively rule out the possibility of self-inflicted injury. It was argued that pellet-based firearms can cause superficial or scattered injuries, and the pattern of injuries allegedly sustained by the complainant raises doubts as to the manner of occurrence described in the FIR. The applicants contend that

the complainant, in an attempt to create evidence and strengthen his claim

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7186

11 MCRC-58796-2025 over the disputed property, orchestrated the incident and falsely attributed the

injuries to the applicants.

It was also submitted that the complainant admitted himself to the hospital and only thereafter involved the police, which casts serious doubt on the spontaneity and credibility of the prosecution story. The FIR, according to the applicants, is a counterblast to the lawful actions taken by them pursuant to court orders and is intended solely to harass, intimidate, and pressurize them.

It was further submitted that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court is meant to prevent abuse of the process of law, and where the allegations are inherently improbable, motivated by prior enmity, and unsupported by reliable scientific evidence, the Court ought to intervene. The prosecution version, it was contended, is inconsistent with the nature of the weapon recovered and the alleged injuries, thereby indicating fabrication and self- infliction. On these grounds, it was prayed that the FIR be quashed in order to secure the ends of justice

Upon careful consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parites, as well as perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that the petitioners have sought quashment of FIR No. 419 of 2024 registered at Police Station Jhansi Road, District Gwalior, contending that it is false, malicious, and instituted with oblique motives.

The allegations contained in the FIR, when taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, prima facie disclose the commission of serious

and cognizable offences involving unlawful entry, use of firearms, assault,

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7186

12 MCRC-58796-2025 and criminal intimidation. There are specific and clear allegations of gunshot

injuries having been caused to the complainant and his family members. The medical examination reports placed on record indicate firearm injuries, and the nature of the injuries, as recorded by the doctors, lends prima facie support to the prosecution version. At this stage, the existence of medically supported gunshot injuries cannot be brushed aside as vague or unsubstantiated allegations.

The defence set up by the petitioners, including the plea of self- inflicted injuries, false implication on account of prior civil disputes, and challenge to the nature of the weapon recovered, are all matters which fall squarely within the realm of disputed questions of fact. Such issues necessarily require appreciation of evidence, forensic and _ ballistic examination, and evaluation of witness testimony, which cannot be undertaken in proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC. This Court, while exercising inherent jurisdiction, is not expected to conduct a meticulous examination of evidence or determine the correctness of competing factual narratives.

It is well settled that the inherent powers of the High Court are to be exercised sparingly, with great caution, and only in cases where the allegations do not disclose any offence or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide and instituted with ulterior motives. In the present case, the FIR contains specific allegations of firing of weapons and resultant injuries, which are medically corroborated. Therefore, it cannot

be said that the complaint is inherently absurd, improbable, or devoid of

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7186

13 MCRC-58796-2025 factual foundation so as to warrant quashment at the threshold.

The existence of prior civil litigation between the parties, including disputes regarding possession and ownership of the property, does not ipso facto render the criminal proceedings an abuse of process, particularly when the allegations disclose elements of criminality independent of the civil dispute. Civil remedies and criminal liability may coexist, and the pendency of one does not bar the initiation or continuation of the other where the ingredients of penal offences are prima facie satisfied.

This Court is also mindful that interference at the initial stage of investigation, especially in a matter involving allegations of firearm use and medically supported gunshot injuries, would amount to stifling a legitimate prosecution and encroaching upon the statutory domain of the investigating agency. The power under Section 482 of the CrPC is not intended to short- circuit the investigative process or to adjudicate disputed facts that properly fall within the province of trial.

In view of the foregoing discussion, and applying the settled principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction, this Court finds no ground to quash FIR No. 419 of 2024 or the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The petition under Section 482 of the CrPC is, accordingly, dismissed.

The petitioners are left free to pursue their rights in accordance with law, and the investigation shall continue unhindered.

No costs.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7186

14 MCRC-58796-2025 (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE