Indal Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 March, 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10662

1 MCRC-31630-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
ON THE 31 st OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 29391 of 2019
INDAL YADAV AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Mr. Lokendra Sharivastava - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajendra Singh Yadav - Dy. Advocate General for respondent/State.

Mr. Sushil Goswami - Advocate for the respondent [COMP].
WITH
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 31630 of 2019
ARVIND YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Mr. Lokendra Sharivastava - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajendra Singh Yadav - Dy. Advocate General for
respondent/State.

Mr. Sushil Goswami - Advocate for the respondent [COMP].

ORDER

The present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 04.07.2019, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia, in RCT No. 971/2019, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners in Crime No. 117/2019 for offences under Sections 195-A, 182, 211, 120-B, and 34 of the IPC.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10662

2 MCRC-31630-2019

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.03.2019, the complainant, Arvind Yadav, accompanied by Indal Singh Yadav, Mangal Singh Yadav, Shivkumar Yadav, and Ramkumar Yadav, reported an incident to the police. The complainant stated that his brother, Satish Yadav, had previously been murdered near the Bikar Bus Stand. That murder is the subject of Crime No. 96/15, registered under Sections 302, 147, 148, and 149 of the IPC at Police Station Dursada, and the trial is currently pending. On the date of the incident i.e. on 05.03.2019, the court had scheduled the testimonies of the complainant, Indal Singh, Mangal Singh, and Shivkumar Yadav. They traveled to the Datia Court in a Safari (Registration No. MP 07 CB 6077). After Indal and Mangal Singh completed their testimonies, the group gathered in their lawyer's chamber at approximately 3:00 PM. At that time, Bunty

Yadav, Sachchu Yadav, Rakesh Yadav, and Dharam Singh Yadav entered the chamber and threatened the complainant with dire consequences if he testified against the said accused. During this confrontation, Bunty Yadav slapped the complainant before leaving. The lawyer promptly informed the presiding judge of the incident. Later on, at approximately 6:00 PM, as the they was returning from court in their Safari car, they were pursued by a Scorpio (Registration No. MP 04 CG 9903). The vehicle was occupied by Bunty Yadav, Dharam Singh Yadav, Rakesh Yadav, Sachchu Yadav, Kadori Yadav, Rajaram Yadav, Suresh Yadav, Rahul Pratap Singh Parmar, and Shiva Raja Parmar. Near Gate No. 2 of the Circuit House, the Scorpio overtook and blocked the complainant's car. Rahul Pratap Singh was armed with a .315 bore rifle, while Bunty, Dharam Singh, Kadori, and Rakesh Yadav were armed with pistols. They surrounded the complainant's vehicle, hurling abuses and stating that he had made a mistake by testifying against them.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10662

3 MCRC-31630-2019

They threatened to shoot him unless he changed his statement. The accused then forcibly pulled the complainant from his vehicle, placed him in the Scorpio, and kidnapped him toward the Jhansi Road Bus Stand Bypass with the intent to kill him. The complainant's companions immediately alerted the police. A police vehicle near the court gave chase, prompting the accused to abandon the complainant on the bypass road and flee toward the bus stand. Based on these allegations, the FIR has been lodged against the aforementioned co-accused persons.

3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that during the investigation, the prosecution filed an application under Section 169 of the Cr.P.C. before the Special Judge (M.P.D.V.P.K. Act) on 21.06.2019. In the said application, it was stated that the incident narrated by the complainant in Crime No. 117 of 2019 never occurred. This application was subsequently accepted by the learned Trial Court on 19.07.2019.

4. It is further submitted that, despite the acceptance of the Section 169 report, the learned CJM took cognizance against the petitioners. Counsel contends that there is no prima facie evidence under Sections 120, 195A, 182, 211, and 34 of the IPC available against the petitioners in the police report. Notwithstanding this lack of evidence, the learned subordinate court took cognizance in a mechanical manner. Such an action constitutes a clear misuse of the judicial process. The impugned order was passed without the application of judicial mind, amounts to an abuse of the process of law, and is, therefore, prima facie liable to be quashed.

5. It is further submitted that on 04.07.2019, the Kotwali Police Station

submitted a report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., alleging that the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10662

4 MCRC-31630-2019 complainant, Arvind Yadav, had registered a false report and fabricated evidence. The police concluded that offenses under Sections 120, 195A, 182, 211, and 34 of the IPC were made out against the petitioners. Upon submission of this report to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia, the learned Subordinate Court took cognizance and issued arrest warrants against the petitioners. It is contended that the Court acted in a mechanical manner, without applying its judicial mind or properly perusing the case diary. Despite the absence of credible prima facie evidence in the police report to satisfy the ingredients of the aforementioned offenses, the learned Trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction by taking cognizance. Consequently, the impugned order and the proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be set aside.

6. Counsel for the respondent/State as well as counsel for the complainant have supported the impugned order and prayed, for its dismissal.

7. Having heard the parties and perused the record, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. It is a well-settled principle of law that the Magistrate is not bound by the conclusions of the investigating agency. Even if the police submit a report under Section 169 of the Cr.P.C. or a final report suggesting the closure of a case, the learned Magistrate has the independent jurisdiction to apply his judicial mind to the facts and take cognizance if the material on record suggests the commission of an offence.

8. In the present case, the allegations involve the fabrication of false evidence and the registration of a misleading FIR (Crime No. 117/2019) to influence a pending murder trial (Crime No. 96/15). Such actions strike at the very root of the administration of justice. The discrepancy between the Section 169 application and the subsequent police report alleging the commission of offences under Sections 195-A, 182, 211, and 120-B of the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10662

5 MCRC-31630-2019 IPC is a matter of trial and cannot be adjudicated in a summary proceeding under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

9. At this stage, there appears to be sufficient prima facie material to proceed against the petitioners. This Court finds no evidence of "mechanical" application of mind or abuse of process by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia. On the contrary, ensuring the purity of legal proceedings by prosecuting those who allegedly file false reports is a necessary exercise of judicial function. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 04.07.2019.

10. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. All pending interim applications stand disposed of.

(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA ) JUDGE

(LJ*)