[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jitendra Singh Sikarwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2101
1 MCRC-9180-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
ON THE 16 th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 9180 of 2015
JITENDRA SINGH SIKARWAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Anuj Mohan Gupta - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Sharma Dy. Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
Mr. Vinod Pathak - Advocate for the respondent [R-2].
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner invoking the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking
the quashing of FIR No. 92/2014, registered at Police Station Jaura, District
Morena, for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 34 of the
IPC, as well as the resultant challan and all consequential proceedings pending
before the JMFC, Morena, in Case No. 195/2015.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant, Balram Singh
Sikarwar,S/o Shri Dwarika Singh Sikarwar, resident of Village Galetha, Tehsil
Jaura, District Morena (M.P.), submitted an application dated 18.02.2014 to the
Collector, District Morena, for the registration of an FIR. The complaint alleged
that one Narendra, son of Badan Singh, had obtained a bank loan (KCC) by
forging the mutation records of agricultural lands belonging to Rajaram Singh and
Ramsewak, with the assistance of Patwari Keshav Singh Tomar. Upon receipt, the
application was forwarded to the SDM, Jaura, who further directed the SHO,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2101
2 MCRC-9180-2015
Police Station Bagchini, to investigate the matter. Consequently, the Police
initially registered a 'Zero FIR' (Crime No. 0/14) under Sections 419, 420, 467,
and 34 of the IPC, and subsequently, on 26.02.2014, registered Crime No.
92/2014 against the accused persons, namely Narendra, Ramsewak, and Keshav
Singh. Subsequently, the name of the present petitioner was added to the array of
accused.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the fact that no specific
allegations were attributed to the petitioner in the application (Annexure P/4) or
the FIR (Annexure P/5), and notwithstanding that his name was not mentioned in
the FIR, the complainant, Balram Singh, and his father, Dwarika Singh,
intentionally implicated the petitioner in their statements recorded under Section
161 of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted that this was done with a malafide intention to
ruin the service career of the petitioner, who is a government servant.
Furthermore, even in the said statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., no
specific overt act has been attributed to the petitioner. Learned counsel has placed
reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and
Others vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 , and Gian Singh vs.
State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 . Under these circumstances, he
prays for the quashing of the FIR.
4. Per contra, counsel for the respondent/State, as well as counsel for the
complainant, vehemently opposed the petitioner's contentions. It is submitted that
there is sufficient material available in the case diary to implicate the petitioner.
Counsel for the complainant further relied upon the statements of the complainant
and his father, Dwarika Singh, which specifically name the petitioner alongwith
other co-accused persons, including Ram Sevak. They allege that the petitioner, in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2101
3 MCRC-9180-2015
connivance with the Patwari, prepared a forged KCC book, on the basis of which
co-accused Narendra obtained a loan from the State Bank of India. It is further
submitted that while the petitioner was absconding, the charge-sheet was filed
under Section 299 of the Cr.P.C., and Section 468 of the IPC was added to the
charges. On these grounds, they prayed for the dismissal of the petition.
5. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that the contention
regarding the petitioner's absconding is factually incorrect. He submits that the
petitioner is a government teacher currently performing his duties at the
Government High School, Galetha, Janpad Jaura, District Morena.
6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
7. Upon perusal of the FIR and the statements of the complainant and his
father, it is an admitted fact that a loan was obtained by one Narendra through the
creation of a forged KCC. Since the present petitioner is the real brother of the co-
accused, his involvement in helping prepare the forged KCC cannot be ruled out
at this stage. Consequently, as the allegations are clearly reflected in the FIR and
the supporting statements, the truth must be established during the trial. The
proceedings shall, therefore, continue before the Trial Court where the petitioner
may establish his case through evidence. At this stage, no interference by this
Court is warranted under the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. The law with respect to the quashing of an FIR under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. is well-settled, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a
plethora of cases. These inherent powers should be exercised sparingly and with
great caution. In the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Others, (2021) 2 SCC 427, the Supreme Court considered the
scope of these powers and held as under:
"11. The principles with respect to quashment of proceedings under
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2101
4 MCRC-9180-2015
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. had dealt with the contours of exercise of
inherent powers of the High Court, thought it appropriate to mention
certain category of cases by ways of illustration wherein the
extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution or inherent
power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. could be exercised either to
prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the
ends of justice. The Court also observed that it may not be possible to
lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulate and to given an exhaustive list
of myriad cases wherein such power should be exercised.
13. There can be no dispute over the proposition that inherent power in
a matter of quashment of FIR has to be exercised sparingly and with
caution and when and only when such exercise is justified by the test
specifically laid down in the provision itself. There is no denial of the
fact that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide but it needs
no special emphasis to state that conferment of wide power requires the
Court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty
on the Court."
9. The Supreme Court has laid down seven principles in the case of State of
Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 .
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 108 and 109 has held 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2101
5 MCRC-9180-2015
(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 265
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 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.
109. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of
quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and
with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare case; that the court
will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability
or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the
complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer
an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or
caprice."
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Taramani Parakh v.State of
M.P. and Ors. reported in (2015) 11 SCC 260 has held that powers under Sec. 482
of Cr.P.C are extraordinary powers given to the High Court and should be
exercised very sparingly and with great care and caution that too in rarest of rare
cases. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tilly Gifford v. Michael Floyd
Eshwar reported in (2018) 11 SCC 205 has held that the power under Sec. 482 of
Cr.P.C. would not permit the High Court to go into disputed questions of fact or to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2101
6 MCRC-9180-2015
appreciate the defence of the accused. The power to interdict a criminal
proceeding at the stage of investigation is even more rare. Broadly speaking, a
criminal investigation, unless tainted by clear malafides, should not be foreclosed
by a Court of Law.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Bhajan Lal (Supra) , has
framed guidelines with respect to entertaining petitions under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, as well as under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., for the quashing
of an FIR. The case of the petitioner does not fall within any of those guidelines.
The specific acts of the petitioner must be established before the Trial Court,
especially since the charge-sheet was filed under Section 299 of the Cr.P.C. while
the petitioner was absconding.
12. In view of aforesaid, present petition is hereby dismissed.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
(LJ*)
