[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deepak Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 January, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3291
1 MCRC-2389-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 27th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 2389 of 2026
DEEPAK LODHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
None for the petitioner.
Ms Anjali Gyanani- Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State.
ORDER
The present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
petitioner for quashing FIR bearing Crime No.367/2021 registered at Police
Station Maharajpura District Gwalior for offence punishable under Section
380 of IPC alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. As per prosecution case, on 23/01/21 at about 12:00 noon, when the
complainant reached his RO plant situated on his agricultural field along
with his father Bhagwansingh Lodhi and friends Ravindrasingh Lodhi and
Pansingh Lodhi, he noticed that the gate and boundary wall of his plant were
broken. Upon entering the premises, he found that his RO plant machinery
and an Ape loading vehicle bearing registration number MP 07 L 5107,
along with camper equipment and approximately 300-200 water jars, had
been stolen by unknown persons. He had earlier entered into an agreement
regarding the RO plant with Ram Bhajan and Deepak, and due to their
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3291
2 MCRC-2389-2026
failure to pay outstanding amount, a dispute has been ongoing between them;
therefore, he strongly suspected that the said RO plant, Ape vehicle, camper,
and water jars have been stolen by them. On the basis of the aforesaid
allegation, the present FIR has been registered.
3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the
following grounds:-
a) That, that the FIR is itself illegal as there is nothing available
against the present petitioner, therefore the FIR as well as its
consequential proceedings may kindly be quashed.
b) That, from the bare perusal of the Agreement (Annexure P/2) it
is apparent that FIR is lodged with an oblique and ulterior motive,
the complainant-after come into the agreement and receiving the
amount all of sudden taken a summersault and in order to grab
some undue advantage, put an excessive amount in to the cheque
and presented before the bank. When, the petitioner stated that deal
was of Five Lac rupees and same is also reflected from the
agreement and complainant may only present the cheque rupees
Three Lac, then complainant said that neither he give the plant, nor
he return the amount, on the contrary he will implicate him in a
false case. The same is also reflected from representation.
Therefore, it is apparent that the FIR is lodged in order to grab
some undue advantage, whereas, the complainant is himself is
wrong on his part and while taking the advantage of this FIR seeks
for grabbing some excessive amount. Hence, the FIR is liable to be
quashed by this Hon'ble High Court.
c) That, it is also necessary to submit here that prior to lodging the
FIR, the preliminary enquiry ought to have been conducted,
however, the police personals in due collusion of complainant and
without conducting any preliminary enquiry directly lodged the
FIR. Otherwise also, in the entire prosecution story complainant
himself concealed the factum of constituting the agreement dated
09/12/2019, which itself creates a serious doubt over the
prosecution case. The FIR is itself appeared to be vague and
lodged with an oblique and ulterior motive.
d) That, virtually, the entire prosecution story has been concocted
by the complainant himself with a devious intention in his mind to
not only harass the petitioner but also to extort undue money as a
pressure tactic. Moreover, despite of such a clear observation of
the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Hon'ble High Court of
conducting preliminary enquiry on the basis of written complaint
required to be conducted, however, in the present case without any
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3291
3 MCRC-2389-2026
preliminary enquiry/ investigation, suddenly merely on the basis
of the complaint made by the respondent no.2, the Police Station
taking a diametrically opposite view stating that a prima facie case
of Section 380 has been made out against the petitioner.
Therefore, as the FIR is lodged with an ulterior motive the same
may kindly be quashed at threshold.
e) That the present case squarely falls within the parameters laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in: Sagar Suri v. State of U.P.
(2000) 2 SCC 636 Criminal proceedings cannot be used for
recovery of money. Vesa Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala
(2015) 8 SCC 293 Civil disputes cannot be dressed up as criminal
cases. Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar (2009) 8 SCC 751
Ownership/possession disputes do not constitute criminal offences
f) That, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana
Vs. Ch. Bhajanilal & Ors. reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 has held
that intrinsic power must be utilized by the High Court with the
singular purpose of preventing the abuse of the process of the
court or to otherwise serve the ends of justice, In exercise of
inherent powers, accurate scrutiny of facts and circumstances of
the case concerned are completely essential. In the said case some
categories have also been cited and as per these categories
promulgated case of the petitioners is covered under these
categories and therefore, ought to have been quashed after
considering these categories.
g) Civil Dispute Wrongly Given Criminal Colour -That the
allegations in the FIR, even if taken at face value, disclose a purely
civil and contractual dispute relating to sale consideration and
cheque presentation. It is settled law that criminal proceedings
cannot be used as a substitute for civil remedies or as a tool for
recovery of money.
h) Malafide Intention and Abuse of Process of Law-That the FIR
has been lodged with an ulterior and oblique motive to harass and
pressurize the petitioner. Such misuse of criminal machinery
squarely attracts the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court
under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process of law.
i) Suppression of Material and Admitted Facts -That deliberate
non-disclosure of the Agreement dated 09.12.2019 and transfer of
possession by the complainant vitiates the entire prosecution case
and renders the FIR unreliable and malicious.
J) BNSS, 2023-Procedural Fairness and Liberty That continuation
of criminal proceedings in a matter arising out of a purely civil
dispute violates the principles of faimess, proportionality, and
protection of personal liberty reaffirmed under the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhit a, 2023, warranting interference by this
Hon'ble Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3291
4 MCRC-2389-2026
k) Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 reads as under -
380. Theft in dwelling house, etc. Whoever commits theft in any
building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a
human dwelling, or used for the custody of property, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
l) That, the petitioner crave leave to raise other grounds at the time
of hearing before this Hon'ble Court.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the petition
and submits that the FIR discloses a clear prima facie commission of
cognizable offence under Section 380 IPC, as specific allegations of theft of
RO plant machinery, Ape vehicle, camper equipment and water jars have
been made, and the petitioner has been named as a suspect on the basis of
prior dealings and existing dispute. It is further submitted that at the stage of
investigation, this Hon'ble Court ought not to undertake a meticulous
examination of disputed facts or evaluate the defence version based on
documents, as the same falls within the domain of trial. The existence of a
civil dispute or contractual relationship does not ipso facto bar criminal
proceedings when ingredients of a criminal offence are disclosed. The FIR is
neither absurd nor inherently improbable. The allegation of mala fide or
ulterior motive is a matter of evidence and cannot be decided under Section
482 CrPC. Therefore, the petition is misconceived, premature, and liable to
be dismissed.
5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The FIR in question has been registered on the allegation that the
complainant found the gate and boundary wall of his RO plant broken and
discovered that RO plant machinery, an Ape loading vehicle, camper
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3291
5 MCRC-2389-2026
equipment and a large quantity of water jars were missing from the premises.
The complainant has further stated that due to prior business dealings and an
existing dispute regarding payment of outstanding amount, he suspects the
involvement of the present petitioner and other persons. On these allegations,
offence under Section 380 of IPC has been registered.
7. It is well settled that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court does not function as a trial court or an
appellate court. The scope of interference is limited to preventing abuse of
the process of law or to secure the ends of justice. At the stage of registration
of FIR or during investigation, the Court is only required to see whether the
allegations, if taken at face value, disclose commission of a cognizable
offence. A meticulous examination of evidence, assessment of reliability of
allegations, or consideration of defence material is impermissible at this
stage.
8. In the present case, the FIR clearly alleges entry into the premises of
the complainant and removal of movable property including machinery and a
vehicle. These allegations, on their plain reading, satisfy the basic
ingredients of the offence of theft punishable under Section 380 IPC.
Whether the petitioner is ultimately found to be involved or not is a matter of
investigation and trial.
9. The principal contention of the petitioner is that the dispute between
the parties is purely civil in nature arising out of an agreement and the FIR
has been lodged with an ulterior motive to pressurize the petitioner for
recovery of money. It is true that existence of a civil dispute may be a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3291
6 MCRC-2389-2026
relevant circumstance; however, it is equally well settled that merely because
a transaction has a civil profile, it does not mean that criminal law cannot be
set in motion if the allegations disclose commission of a criminal offence.
The defence of the petitioner that the complainant himself is in breach of the
agreement or possession had been transferred are disputed questions of fact,
which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
10. The reliance placed by the petitioner on judgments such as Sagar
Suri (supra), Vesa Holdings (supra) and Mohd. Ibrahim (supra) does not
advance his case. Those decisions reiterate that criminal proceedings should
not be used for recovery of money or for settling purely civil disputes.
However, they also recognize that where the allegations disclose criminal
intent or criminal acts, proceedings cannot be quashed merely because a civil
dispute also exists. In the present case, the allegation is not merely of non-
payment or breach of contract but of actual removal of property from the
complainant's premises, which prima facie constitutes theft.
11. The contention regarding non-conduct of preliminary enquiry also
does not merit acceptance. The law laid down in Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of
U.P. & ors. AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 187 permits registration of FIR in
cases disclosing cognizable offence without preliminary enquiry, except in
limited categories. Allegations of theft of movable property squarely fall
within cognizable offences requiring prompt registration of FIR. Therefore,
the registration of FIR cannot be faulted on this ground.
12. The plea of mala fide, ulterior motive and suppression of facts are
matters which require evidence and cannot be conclusively determined at this
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3291
7 MCRC-2389-2026
stage. Even if there is some animosity or business dispute between the
parties, that by itself does not render the FIR liable to be quashed when the
allegations disclose a cognizable offence.
13. The parameters laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal
(supra) are well known. The present case does not fall within any of the
categories warranting quashing of FIR. The allegations are not absurd,
inherently improbable or such that no prudent person can ever reach a
conclusion that an offence has been committed. The principles of fairness
and personal liberty are adequately safeguarded by the statutory procedure
during investigation and trial. At this stage, quashing the FIR would amount
to stifling a legitimate prosecution at its inception, which is impermissible.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered
view that the FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence and the
issues raised by the petitioner are matters of defence to be examined during
investigation or trial. No case is made out for exercise of inherent powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
15. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
