[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Radha Agarwal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 January, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2453
1 WP-29025-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 20th OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 29025 of 2021
SMT RADHA AGARWAL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Amit Bansal - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Samar Ghuraiya - Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1 to
3/State.
ORDER
This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
has been preferred by the petitioners seeking following reliefs:-
"a) Criminal case at crime no 237/2021 registered at respondent
no. 3 police station Jhansi Road Gwalior may kindly be quashed
against the petitioners.
b) The respondent No. 1 and 2 may kindly directed to take action
against the respondent no. 3 and 4 for false implicating the
petitioners in the false criminal case.
c) For such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble court may
deem fit and proper in favour of petitioner."
2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that petitioner No.1
is a senior citizen and widow whose husband died on 23.08.2020 during the
COVID-19 pandemic. She is the absolute owner of a self-acquired residential
house at Mahadji Park, Lashkar, Gwalior, purchased through a registered
sale deed dated 20.09.1991. Respondent No.4, her daughter-in-law (wife of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2453
2 WP-29025-2021
her elder son), along with respondent No.5 and their daughter, were residing
in a portion of the said house. During the lifetime of petitioner No.1's
husband, the respondents No.4 and 5 continuously subjected the petitioners
to verbal abuse, cruelty, and physical threats, compelling them to lodge
criminal complaints. After her husband's death, petitioner No.1 lived alone
but was forced to leave her house due to escalating violence and threats by
respondents No.4 and 5, and since 15.04.2021 has been residing with her
younger son, petitioner No.2. Taking advantage of her absence, the
respondents attempted to forcibly occupy the house and on 24.05.2021
damaged the property, abused, and attempted to assault petitioner No.1.
Despite repeated complaints to the police authorities, no action was taken.
Consequently, petitioner No.1 filed an application under the Maintenance
and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act on 25.05.2021 seeking
eviction of the respondents. Subsequently, respondent No.4 lodged an FIR
regarding an alleged incident dated 27.04.2021 against unknown persons;
however, during investigation, the petitioners were illegally implicated,
resulting in registration of Crime No.237/2021 under Sections 452, 354, 323
and 34 IPC. Earlier, Petitioner No.1 and her husband had lodged an FIR
bearing Crime No. 285/2015 against Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, which is
presently pending trial, thereby clearly demonstrating their habitual conduct
of harassment. Aggrieved by the arbitrary and mala fide action of the police,
the petitioners have approached this Court seeking appropriate relief in the
interest of justice.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that admittedly no First
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2453
3 WP-29025-2021
Information Report was ever registered against the petitioners at the
inception of the case. However, respondent No. 3, without conducting any
fair, impartial, or lawful investigation, has arbitrarily and illegally
incorporated the names of the petitioners as accused persons in the said
crime. Such action is wholly unjustified and amounts to a gross abuse of the
process of law.
4. It is further submitted that respondents No. 4 and 5, with the sole
and malafide intention of grabbing the house belonging to petitioner No. 1,
have been continuously harassing her for several years. The impugned FIR
has been lodged with an ulterior motive and with clear malice. Even while
lodging the FIR, respondent No. 4 did not name the present petitioners.
Despite this, the police authorities, acting arbitrarily and in collusion with the
complainant, have falsely implicated the petitioners under Sections 452, 354,
323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The entire action of the respondents is
illegal, arbitrary, malafide, and intended only to harass, humiliate, and
pressurize the petitioners.
5. Learned counsel further submits that FIR bearing Crime No.
237/2021 was initially lodged by respondent No. 4 alleging that on
27.04.2021 at about 14:00 hours, two unknown persons, whose faces were
covered with masks and whose heads were wrapped in such a manner that
only their eyes were visible, forcibly entered her house, assaulted her,
behaved indecently, and attempted to molest her with ill intention. It was
further alleged that when her daughter, namely Ishika Agrawal, came to her
rescue, the said persons fled from the spot. Significantly, in the said FIR, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2453
4 WP-29025-2021
complainant categorically stated that she did not know the said persons,
though she claimed that she would be able to identify them if produced
before her.
6. It is submitted that in her initial statement recorded under Section
161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 27.04.2021, respondent No. 4 did
not level any allegation whatsoever against the present petitioners. However,
in her subsequent statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on
23.06.2021, she made material improvements over her earlier version and,
for the first time, falsely implicated the petitioners in the alleged crime. Such
improvement is clearly an afterthought, lacks credibility, and is wholly
unreliable in the eyes of law.
7. Learned counsel submits that there exists a long-standing and
serious property dispute between the petitioners and respondents No. 4 and 5.
The FIR was admittedly lodged against unknown persons. It is wholly
improbable, unnatural, and unbelievable that a daughter-in-law residing in
the same house would fail to identify her own brother-in-law (Devar) and
mother-in-law (Saas). This circumstance alone demolishes the prosecution
story and clearly establishes the false implication of the petitioners.
9. It is further submitted that a bare perusal of the impugned FIR
would demonstrate that respondent No. 4 had lodged the complaint against
two unidentified persons. However, during the course of investigation,
respondent No. 3, in complete disregard of the settled principles governing
fair and impartial investigation, has attempted to entangle the petitioners in
the alleged crime and has arbitrarily arrayed four petitioners along with other
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2453
5 WP-29025-2021
persons, namely Dharmendra Sahu and Saurabh Sharma, as accused. This
conduct clearly reveals that respondent No. 3, in collusion with respondent
No. 4, has carried out a biased and tainted investigation with the sole object
of blackmailing and pressurizing the petitioners to surrender the house of
petitioner No. 1. The entire action of the respondents in incorporating the
names of the petitioners as accused persons is thus arbitrary, malafide, and
motivated, and has been undertaken solely to harass the petitioners and
misuse the criminal justice system. Therefore, the impugned FIR, insofar as
it relates to the present petitioners, deserves to be quashed. To substantiate
his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Govind Mandavi vs. State of
Chhattisgarh, decided on 08.12.2025 in SLP (Cri.) Nos. 13533 of 2025,
particularly paragraphs 42 and 45.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the
First Information Report discloses commission of cognizable offences and
was registered strictly in accordance with law. During the course of
investigation, the Investigating Officer has acted fairly, objectively, and in
consonance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The
mere fact that the names of the petitioners did not figure in the initial FIR
does not, by itself, render the subsequent investigation illegal or vitiated. It is
a settled principle of law that an FIR is not an encyclopedia and need not
contain all details, including the names of all accused persons, at the initial
stage.
11. Learned counsel submits that respondent No. 4, in her subsequent
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2453
6 WP-29025-2021
statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., as well as in her statement
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate, has made
clear, categorical, and specific allegations against the present petitioners,
attributing overt acts to them. The statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.,
being recorded before a Judicial Magistrate, carries greater sanctity and
evidentiary value, and cannot be brushed aside merely on the ground that the
allegations were not made in the very first statement.
12. Learned counsel for the State further submits that the medical
examination of respondent No. 4 corroborates the prosecution version. The
medical report reveals injuries on her person, which are consistent with the
allegations of assault made in the FIR and subsequent statements. The
presence of injuries lends prima facie support to the prosecution case and
rules out the contention that the FIR is wholly false or concocted.
13. It is also submitted that the contention regarding a property dispute
is a matter of defence and involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot
be adjudicated in proceedings for quashing of FIR. Whether the criminal
proceedings are motivated by a property dispute or not is a mixed question of
fact and law, which can only be decided after appreciation of evidence
during trial.
14. Learned counsel submits that the Investigating Officer, after
collecting material evidence, recording statements of witnesses, and
considering the overall circumstances, has found sufficient prima facie
material against the petitioners, and therefore their implication cannot be
termed as arbitrary or malafide. At this stage, the Court is only required to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2453
7 WP-29025-2021
see whether the allegations, if taken at face value, disclose the commission of
an offence. A meticulous examination of contradictions, improvements, or
improbabilities in the prosecution case is impermissible at the stage of
quashing.
15. It is further contended that the offences alleged under Sections 452,
354, 323, and 34 of the IPC are serious in nature, particularly the offence
under Section 354 IPC, which concerns the dignity and modesty of a woman.
Such offences cannot be lightly quashed on the basis of disputed factual
assertions raised by the accused. In view of the aforesaid submissions,
learned counsel for the State prays that the petition seeking quashment of the
FIR and consequential proceedings be dismissed.
16. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
17. It is well settled that the power of quashing criminal proceedings is
to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in cases where the
allegations, even if taken at their face value and accepted in entirety, do not
disclose the commission of any offence or where the proceedings are
manifestly attended with mala fides and are an abuse of the process of law.
At the stage of considering a petition for quashment, this Court is not
expected to conduct a roving enquiry into the disputed questions of fact, nor
to meticulously examine the reliability, credibility, or probative value of the
material collected during investigation.
18. In the present case, the FIR discloses allegations of house trespass,
assault, and outraging of modesty, which are cognizable offences. Though it
is true that the names of the present petitioners did not find mention in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2453
8 WP-29025-2021
initial FIR, the law is equally well settled that an FIR is not expected to be an
encyclopaedia of all facts and details, nor it is mandatory that the names of
all accused persons must be disclosed at the very inception. The investigation
is a dynamic process, and the Investigating Officer is empowered to array
any person as an accused if, during the course of investigation, material
surfaces indicating his or her involvement in the alleged offence.
19. From the record, it is evident that respondent No. 4, in her
subsequent statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and more
particularly in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the learned
Magistrate, has made specific allegations against the petitioners and
attributed overt acts to them. A statement recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C., having been made before a Judicial Magistrate, carries a certain
degree of sanctity and cannot be discarded at the threshold merely on the
ground that such allegations were not made in the very first version. Whether
such subsequent statements amount to improvement, embellishment, or are
the result of afterthought is a matter which squarely falls within the domain
of trial and appreciation of evidence, and not within the limited scope of
proceedings for quashment.
20. The contention of the petitioners that there exists a property
dispute between the parties and that the criminal proceedings are motivated
by an ulterior desire to grab the house of petitioner No. 1 raises disputed
questions of fact. Such pleas, even if assumed to be available to the
petitioners, constitute matters of defence and cannot be examined or
adjudicated upon in a petition seeking quashment of an FIR. The mere
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2453
9 WP-29025-2021
existence of a civil or property dispute does not ipso facto render the
criminal proceedings mala fide, particularly when the allegations disclose
ingredients of criminal offences.
21. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the offence under
Section 354 IPC pertains to the dignity and modesty of a woman. Allegations
of such nature, supported by statements recorded during investigation and
medical evidence indicating injuries, cannot be brushed aside lightly at the
threshold. The medical report, prima facie, lends corroboration to the
prosecution version and reinforces the conclusion that the matter requires a
full-fledged trial.
22. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on the
judgment in Govind Mandavi vs. State of Chhattisgarh (supra) is misplaced
and distinguishable on facts. In the present case, the investigation has yielded
material connecting the petitioners with the alleged offence, and therefore the
ratio of the said judgment is not applicable.
23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the subsequent statements of the complainant, and the material
collected during investigation, when taken at face value, disclose the
commission of cognizable offences against the petitioners. No case is made
out to hold that the impugned FIR or the consequent proceedings are
manifestly arbitrary, malafide, or an abuse of the process of law warranting
interference by this Court at this stage.
24. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.
25. It is, however, clarified that any observations made herein are
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2453
10 WP-29025-2021
confined only to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not be
construed as an expression on the merits of the case during trial, which shall
proceed independently in accordance with law.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
