[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shiv Hari Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23562
1 MCRC-52450-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
ON THE 17th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 52450 of 2023
SHIV HARI SHUKLA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vivek Shukla - Advocate for the petitioner.
Smt. Neetu Pasine - Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1/State.
ORDER
The present petition under Section of 482 CrPC has been preferred
against the impugned order dated 07.08.2023 passed by the learned 2nd
Additional Sessions Judge, Maihar, District Satna (M.P.) in Criminal
Revision No.10/2023, whereby the learned Revisional Court has affirmed the
order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), framing
charges against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 354 of
the Indian Penal Code.
2. Prosecution story, in short, is that the complainant lodged an FIR
against the present applicant on 25.06.2020 at Police Station Maihar, District
Satna (M.P.), registered as Crime No.489/2020 for offences under Sections
354, 354-D and 506 Part II IPC alleging that the incident occurred on
24.06.2020 at about 8:00 PM, wherein the applicant, being a neighbour, had
been allegedly messaging and following her for about one year with bad
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23562
2 MCRC-52450-2023
intentions and threatening her, and on the said date had caught hold of her
hand and intimidated her; thereafter, upon investigation, the police filed a
charge sheet against the applicant. The applicant, aggrieved by a biased and
hasty investigation, filed an application for discharge under Section 227
Cr.P.C. contending that the case is false and a counterblast to an earlier FIR
dated 25.04.2020 (Crime No. 312/2020 under Sections 457 and 380 IPC)
lodged against the complainant's mother, in which the applicant was an eye-
witness, due to which the complainant had threatened him with false
implication. It is further submitted that prior complaints were made by the
applicant's father apprehending false implication, and local residents as well
as the landlord of the complainant had also raised grievances regarding her
conduct, but the same were ignored by the police. The learned Trial Court
without proper appreciation of the material, rejected the discharge
application and framed charges against the applicant, and the Criminal
Revision No.10/2023 preferred against the said order was also dismissed by
the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Maihar vide order dated 07.08.2023,
hence the present petition.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the JMFC and the
Revisional Court overlooked that the applicant is an eyewitness in Crime
Case No.312/2020 against the prosecutrix's mother, and that the present case
is likely a retaliatory measure. The learned Judge also failed to call for the
FIR record to properly appreciate the facts.
4. It is further submitted that the impugned order passed by the
learned Trial Court runs contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23562
3 MCRC-52450-2023
Court in Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration & Another , (1996) 9 SCC
766 , wherein it was held as under:-
"An incidental question which emerges in this context is
whether the Session Judge can look into any material other than
those produced by the prosecution. Section 226 of the Code
obliges the prosecution to describe the charge brought against the
accused and to state by what evidence the guilt of the accused
would be proved. The Next provisions enjoins on the Session
Judge to decide whether there is sufficient ground to proceed
against the accused. In so deciding the Judge has to consider (1)
the record of the case and (2) the documents produced therewith.
He has then to hear the submissions of the accused as well as the
prosecution on the limited question whether there is sufficient
ground to proceed. What is the scope of hearing the submissions?
Should it be confined to hearing oral arguments alone?
Similar situation arise under Section 239 of the Code (which
deals with trial of warrant cases on police report). In that situation
the Magistrate has to afford the prosecution and the accused an
opportunity of being heard besides considering the police report
and the documents sent therewith. At these two State the Code
enjoins on the Court to give audience to the accused for deciding
whether it is necessary to proceed to the next State. It is a matter of
exercise of judicial mind. There is nothing in the code which
shrinks the scope of such audience to oral arguments. If the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23562
4 MCRC-52450-2023
accused succeeds in producing any reliable material at that stage
which might fatally affect even the very sustainability of the case,
it is unjust to suggest that no such material shall be looked into by
the Court at that stage. Here the "ground" may be any valid ground
including insufficiency of evidence to prove charge.
The object of providing such an opportunity as is envisaged
in Section 227 of the code is to enable the Court to decide whether
it is necessary to proceed to conduct the trial. If the case ends
there it gains a lot of time of the Court and saves much human
efforts and cost. If the materials produced by the accused even at
that early stage would clinch the issue, why should the Court shut
it out saying that such documents need be produced only after
wasting a lot more time in the name of trial proceedings. Hence,
we are of the view that Sessions Judge would be within his powers
to consider even material which the accused may produce at the
stage contemplated in Section 227 of the Code."
5. The learned Court failed to consider the place and timing of the
alleged incident, rendering the prosecution story highly improbable. It also
overlooked that, despite the incident allegedly occurring on a busy street
during evening hours, no independent witness has been cited in the FIR.
Further, the FIR alleges that the applicant had been following, messaging,
and threatening the prosecutrix for over a year, yet she did not disclose this to
her family, raising serious doubts about the veracity of the allegations.
Additionally, the delay in lodging the FIR--despite the prosecutrix stating it
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23562
5 MCRC-52450-2023
was due to her father's absence, while she herself reported the matter the
next day--suggests that the complaint was a result of deliberation and
afterthought. The learned JMFC as well as the Revisional Court erred in
appreciating the material on record and wrongly concluded that a prima facie
case exists, based merely on conjectures and surmises. The proceedings
initiated by the prosecutrix are manifestly mala fide and appear to have been
instituted with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance due to personal
enmity. Even otherwise, the essential ingredients of Section 354 IPC are not
made out, as there is no material to show any assault or use of criminal force
with intent to outrage modesty. The applicant is innocent and has been
falsely implicated owing to prior hostility. Reliance may be placed on Suhail
Fasih vs. State of U.P. & Another Criminal Revision no. 3439 of 2011
decided by Allahabad High Court, wherein it was held that proceedings
arising out of a counterblast FIR, lacking sufficient grounds, deserve
discharge to prevent abuse of process. In the present case as well,
continuation of trial would only result in unnecessary harassment, as no
offence under Sections 354, 354-D, and 506-II IPC is made out against the
applicant.
6. It is also submitted that learned JMFC as well as the Revisional
Court have erred in law and on facts in framing and affirming the charges
against the applicant without properly appreciating the material on record, as
both courts failed to consider the crucial fact that the applicant was an eye-
witness in a prior FIR (Crime No.312/2020) registered against the
complainant's mother and the present case is a counterblast filed with mala
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23562
6 MCRC-52450-2023
fide intention to pressurize and take revenge; further, the courts failed to
exercise jurisdiction vested under Section 227 Cr.P.C. by not considering
relevant defence material and not even calling for records of the earlier FIR,
contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish Mehra
vs Delhi Administration (1996) 9 SCC 766, which permits consideration of
defence material at the stage of discharge. It is further submitted that the
prosecution story is inherently improbable considering the place and time of
the alleged incident, absence of any independent witness despite the incident
allegedly occurring in a public place during evening hours, unexplained
conduct of the prosecutrix in remaining silent for a prolonged period despite
alleged continuous harassment and threats, and delay in lodging the FIR,
which indicates afterthought and deliberation. The courts below have
mechanically concluded that a prima facie case is made out based on
conjectures and surmises, ignoring that the essential ingredients of Section
354 IPC, particularly intention to outrage modesty, are not made out even if
the allegations are taken at face value. The proceedings are manifestly
attended with mala fide and initiated with ulterior motive due to prior
enmity, and even otherwise there is no likelihood of conviction, rendering
continuation of trial an abuse of process of law, as also recognized in Suhail
Fasih vs State of U.P. ; hence, the impugned orders are unsustainable in law
and liable to be set aside.
7. Counsel for the State has opposed the petition and prayed for
dismissal of the petition.
8. Upon perusal of the record, it is evident that specific allegations
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23562
7 MCRC-52450-2023
are attributed to the petitioner and there exists prima facie material indicating
that the essential ingredients of Section 354 IPC are made out. The
averments in the FIR clearly disclose the commission of the alleged offences
and assign a definite role to the petitioner, which cannot be termed vague or
omnibus. At the stage of quashment, the Court is not required to undertake a
detailed appreciation of evidence or consider the defence of the petitioner.
The pleas raised involve disputed questions of fact that can only be
adjudicated upon after evidence is led during trial, and therefore cannot be
examined under Section 482 CrPC.
9. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI)
JUDGE
rv
