Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mandakini Dixit vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 July, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:19273
1 WA-1810-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
ON THE 17th OF JULY, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 1810 of 2026
MANDAKINI DIXIT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shashank Shekhar Rai, Advocate with Shri Sankalp Kochar
and Shri Yash Agrawal, Advocates for the petitioner [P-1].
Shri Shrey Raj Saxena, Dy. AG for the respondent/State.
Shri Manoj Kumar Soni, Advocate for the respondent [R-6].
Shri Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the respondent [R-5].
Reserved on : 10/07/2026
Pronounced on : 17/07/2026
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
ORDER
Per: Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt
The present writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha
Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is preferred by the
appellant being and dis-satisified by the impugned order and judgment, passed in
W.P. No.47622/2025( Santosh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Others) on
18.04.2026 whereby the learned Single Judge of the Hon’ble High Court has
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 17-07-2026
18:18:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:19273
2 WA-1810-2026
directed the transfer of investigation from Respondent No. 4 to CBI with
direction that FIR be registered by CBI against the appellant and
investigation be taken to a logical conclusion.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Appellant is entitled to the protection
and enjoyment of all rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of
India. The Respondent Authorities are the State Government and its
functionaries, and are, therefore, amenable to the extraordinary writ
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. Respondent No. 5 is the original writ petitioner in Writ Petition
No.47622/2025, whereas Respondent No. 6, namely the Central Bureau of
Investigation, has been directed vide the impugned order to take over the
investigation from Respondent No. 4, register an FIR, and conduct
investigation into the matter in question.
3. Appellant is a gazetted officer having rendered more than fourteen
years of unblemished Government service. She has served with distinction in
both the Central Government (from 2011 to 2016) and the State Government
of Madhya Pradesh (from 2016 onwards). Throughout this period, the
appellant’s service record has remained exemplary, blameless and
consistently meritorious, without any adverse entry, censure or disciplinary
action.
4. Deceased, Dinesh Makwana was a liquor licensee of 5 shops for the
preceding financial year namely Chapda A, Chapda B, Double Chowki B,
Karnawad and Deheria Sahu in Dewas rural. The annual revenue of these
shops were valued at Rs.14,09,43,257/-. In accordance with the policy of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 17-07-2026
18:18:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:19273
3 WA-1810-2026
Excise Department, M.P., he was mandated to pay Rs.58,72,640/- through
online medium fortnightly as government fees for running/ continuing his
licence. In addition to this, every liquor contractor pays additional duty for
the liquor stock he is purchasing. On 08.11.2025, Statutory demand notice
was issued by appellant and Collector Dewas to Dinesh Makwana in
conformity with Clause 13.12 of M.P Gazette Notification dated 14 Feb
2025. Dinesh Makwana committed suicide by consuming celphos on
08.11.2025, at his residence and unfortunately succumbed at Bombay
Hospital, Indore. On 09.11.2025, Respondent No. 5 sent the purported video
from the mobile to the Sub Inspector, Prem Narayan Yadav, Excise
Department, Dewas. Further of the Appellant and demanded Rs.2 Crores to
‘settle’ the matter or else she threatened to circulate the alleged purported
video in media. On 09.11.2025, appellant immediately informed her
Collector and Superintendent of Police (SP) upon information received from
the subordinate officer. Inquest proceedings (merg jaanch) instituted in
Respondent No.4 (Thana Kanadiya, Indore). On 11.11.025, Sub Inspector
Prem Narayan Yadav went to serve the physical copy of the demand notice
to the address of Dinesh Makwana. Santosh Makwana (Respondent No.5)
and her associates again re-iterated their demand of Rs.2 crores or
else threatened to circulate the video in media. On 13.11.2025, the deceased
wife Kavita Makwana wrote 03 letters to Collector seeking to surrender the
liquor licenses and requested that the bank guarantee may not be invoked
towards the outstanding dues. Santosh Makwana (Respondent No.5) insisted
to have a conversation with the Appellant and on call further demanded the
illicit amount of Rs. 2 Crores. On the same day, it is apposite to mention that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 17-07-2026
18:18:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:19273
4 WA-1810-2026
Respondent No. 5 again called Sub Inspector Prem Narayan Yadav and
further demanded the illicit amount and insisted to speak with the Appellant.
The Respondent No.5 Santosh Makwana pressurised Sub-Inspector Prem
Narayan Yadav and insisted to meet the Appellant failing which, she will
circulate the video. Thereafter, the Respondent No.5 associate Nand Kishore
Patel contacted the Appellant’s husband and re-iterated the demand made by
the Respondent No.5. Frustrated by Appellant’s continuous refusal to
succumb to her illicit demand and in fear of loss of bank guarantee the
Respondent No.5 |filed Writ Petition bearing W.P. No. 47622/2025 on
04.12.2025 seeking FIR against the Appellant.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Hon’ble
Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court has wrongly equated Section 194 of the
BNSS, 2023 which provides merg enquiry with FIR registration and criminal
investigation resulting in procedural illegality and prejudice to fair
investigation. By drawing attention and observation made by the learned
Single Judge in Para – 13 of its impugned order, he has submitted that the
impugned order relied upon is disputed and unverified electronic material
and records conclusive prima facie observation against the appellant,
including observation regarding alleged influence over the police machinery,
which are likely to be seriously prejudiced and pre-determined the course of
future inquiry/ investigation, thereby adversely affecting the appellant’s
valuable rights to fair investigation and principles of natural justice and also
the procedure is required to be followed by the authorities in appropriate
manner. It is not done in the present case. He has drawn the attention of this
Court to the record and submitted that it transpires therefrom that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 17-07-2026
18:18:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:19273
5 WA-1810-2026
appellant had previously filed a petition before this Hon’ble Court on
04.12.2025, wherein the petitioner prayed for the following reliefs :-
(i) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
direction or order, directing the Respondent Authorities to
register a FIR and conduct a fair, proper and impartial
investigation into the abetment of suicide of the petitioner’s
son, specifically against Respondent No. 4 (sic. Respondent
No.5), on the basis of the suicide video, statements, and other
material placed on record .
(ii) Direct that the investigation be handed over to an
independent agency such as the CBI / SIT, or be conducted
under the supervision of this Hon’ble Court, in view of the
deliberate inaction and bias shown by the local police due to
the influential position of Respondent No. 4, (sic. Respondent
No.5).
(iii) Issue appropriate directions to ensure protection of the
petitioner and his family members from any threat, pressure,
or intimidation by Respondent No. 5 or any officials connected
to her.
(iv) Direct the respondents to take disciplinary and
departmental action against concerned police officials who
failed to perform their statutory duty of registering and
investigating cognizable offences.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that in the
factual background of this writ appeal, on 08.11.2025, one Dinesh
Makwana committed suicide by consuming celphos at his
residence and unfortunately succumbed at Bombay Hospital,
Indore. He has further submitted that on the same day i.e. on
08.11.2025, Statutory demand notice issued by Appellant and
Collector Dewas to Dinesh Makwana in conformity with Clause
13.12 of M.P Gazette Notification dated 14 Feb 2025. He has
further submitted that on 09.11.2025, the Respondent No.5 by her
mobile, sent the purported video on the WhatsApp to Sub-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 17-07-2026
18:18:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:19273
6 WA-1810-2026
Inspector, Prem Narayan Yadav, Excise Department, Dewas.
Further on WhatsApp call to him, the Respondent No.5, demanded
Rs. 2.00 Crores to settle the matter or else she will do press
conference against the appellant. He has further submitted that on
09.11.2025, appellant immediately informed her Collector and
Superintendent of Police (SP) upon information received from the
subordinate officer. Inquest proceedings (merg jaanch)
instituted in Respondent No.4 (Thana Kanadiya, Indore). It is
further submitted that the respondent no.5 Santosh Makwana
pressurised Sub-Inspector Prem Narayan Yadav and insisted to
meet the Appellant failing which she will circulate the video. She
also insisted that her bank guarantee should not be invoked/
adjusted while she is surrendering the license. He has further
submitted that one associate of Respondent No.5 namely Nand
Kishore Patel contacted the Appellant husband on 19.11.2025 and
re-iterated the demand made by the Respondent No.5. Thereafter,
on 24.11.2025, a Criminal Complaint was filed by Appellant
before Superintendent of Police, Dewas. On 26.11.2025, the
Respondent No.5 called on WhatsApp of Appellant’s husband.
The associate of Respondent No.5 Nand Kishore Patel also called
re-iterating the illegal demand. On 29.11.2025, the Respondent
No.5 for the first time implicated the name of the Respondent in
the 29.11.2025 inquest proceedings (merg inquiry) before
Kanadiya Police station, Indore and submitted a pen drive
containing the video. He submitted that it is relevant to note that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 17-07-2026
18:18:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:19273
7 WA-1810-2026
on 30.11.2025, the Respondent No. 5 deposited the mobile of the
deceased before the IO in merg jaanch. He has further submitted
that on 01.12.2025, in view of the instructions received from the
superior officers of the Excise Department, the appellant has wrote
letter to the UCO Bank for invocation for bank guarantee of the
|deceased on account of non- payment of outstanding dues. It is
also submitted that frustrated by Appellant’s continuous refusal to
succumb to her illicit demand and in fear of loss of bank
guarantee, the Respondent No.5 filed Writ Petition on 04.12.2025
bearing W.P. No.47622/2025 seeking FIR against the Appellant
and made allegations against Respondent No.4 that he is working
under influence of Appellant and therefore requested transfer of
the enquiry to CBI/SIT.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that on
05.12.2025, Respondent No. 5 maliciously circulated the
purported video which was reported by the media. Thereafter, the
proceedings are proceeded before the Hon’ble High Court and FSL
report was filed on 17.02.2026. On 18.04.2026, by way of
impugned order, the Court directed the transfer of the
enquiry/investigation to CBI along with direction to straight away
register FIR against the Appellant, which is not in consonance
with the provisions of Section 156 of the Cr.P.C. neither 194 of
the BNSS, 2023 and, therefore, he has submitted that the
impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge of the Hon’ble
High Court is bad in the eye of law and required to be interfered.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 17-07-2026
18:18:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:19273
8 WA-1810-2026
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has further drawn our
attention towards the fact that on 03.12.2025, the communication
is addressed to the Higher Officer, which is posted from the Post
Office at High Court and, on 04.12.2025, the writ petition was
filed. Therefore, even before the communication is reached to the
Higher Officer for any deficit in the action of the concerned
officer of the Kanadiya Police Station, the petition is already filed
for seeking the transfer of the investigation to the CBI. He has
further drawn attention of this Court towards the chronology of the
event which is narrated as earlier. The name of respondent No.5
was first time implicated on 29.11.2025 before the Kanadiya
Police Station by submitting the pen-drive and within five days,
the petition is filed. He has further submitted that otherwise also,
Dinesh Makwana has committed suicide on 08.11.2025 and the
grievance is made against the respondent No.5 that the respondent
No.5 after a conspicuous delay of 24 days for the first time
submitted a representation before the Kanadiya Police Station, on
29.11.2025. He further submitted that, looking into the chronology
of events, it cannot be said that the police authorities had ample
time to investigate the alleged offence. Even regarding the
preliminary enquiry initiated pursuant to the suicide of the late
Dinesh Makwana, sufficient time was not granted to the police,
who were still examining the pen drive and other material to
ascertain whether any prima facie offence was made out against
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 17-07-2026
18:18:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:19273
9 WA-1810-2026
Respondent No. 5 or the present appellant. Furthermore, he
submitted that the learned Single Judge of Hon’ble High Court has
failed to take note of non-production of original device by
respondent No.5. He has also submitted that from the facts of the
case looking to the said video of Dinesh Makwana, then also it
cannot be said that there is any prima facie offence made out
under Section 306 of IPC or 108 of the BNS, 2023 as necessary
ingredients of abetment of suicide is missing. He has submitted
that for constituting abetment there must exist clear mens rea,
intentional instigation, active aid, or direct proximity between the
conduct of the accused and the act of suicide. Mere allegations,
emotional discord, strained relations, or ordinary harassment do
not ipso facto constitute abetment of suicide. Therefore, he
submits that while passing impugned order learned Court has
overlooked the ratio of the judgment laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of
Chhattisgarh, Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, Pawan Kumar
v. State of Himachal Pradesh wherein, it has been held that there
must be a clear element of intentional provocation or active
participation leading the deceased to commit suicide. In the instant
case, during the course of the enquiry, the Respondent No. 4 has
found no incriminating material against the Appellant. He has
further submitted that otherwise also in view of the various
judgments, though the suicide is unfortunate incident, but it cannot
be said that the appellant has “abetted” within the meaning of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 17-07-2026
18:18:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:19273
10 WA-1810-2026
Section 306 of the IPC read with Section 107 of IPC thereof. He
has referred to the judgments laid down, in this regard, in the case
o f Randhir Singh v State of Punjab, (2004) 13 SCC 129, Netai
Dutta v State of W.B., (2005) 2 SCC 659, Sushil Kumar Sharma v
U.O.L., (2005) 6 SCC 281, Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B., (2010)
1 SCC 707, Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of A.P.,(2010) 1 SCC
750 and S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC
190 and various other judgments on this issue. Lastly, he
submitted on this aspect that for ‘abetment of suicide’ under
Section 306 of IPC, essential ingredients such as, instigating or
intentionally aiding the person to commit suicide and direct
evidence indicating at an active role, on the part of the accused, in
commission of suicide by the deceased is required to be made out.
Because the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that no
complaint was ever lodged by the respondent before any
competent authority prior to the initiation of the present litigation,
a fact which severely undermines the credibility and bona fides of
the allegations. He has further submitted that appellant herself was
subjected to the blackmail by showing the said video clip as she
had already issued a show cause notice to the respondent No.5’s
son on 08.11.2025 to pay the dues of the Department to the tune
of Rs.35,00,000/-. He has further submitted by referring to the fact
that the petition which is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India before the learned Single Judge is itself is not
maintainable in view of the fact that the alternate efficacious
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 17-07-2026
18:18:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:19273
11 WA-1810-2026
statutory remedy is available to the respondent No.5 under Section
175(3) and 223 of BNSS, 2023. He has further relied on the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajender
Singh Pathania v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2011) 13 SCC
by referring to Para 13, 14 and 15 of that judgment which reads as
under :-
13. The judgment and order impugned herein shocked our
judicial conscience as under what circumstances such a petty
incident was considered by the High Court to be a fit case to be
referred to CBI for investigation.
14. This very Bench recently in Disha v. State of Gujarat
[(2011) 13 SCC 337] while relying upon the earlier judgments
of this Court in Ashok Kumar Todi v. Kishwar Jahan [(2011) 3
SCC 758 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 75] and Narmada Bai v. State
of Gujarat [(2011) 5 SCC 79 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 526] , came
to the conclusion that for directing CBI to hold the
investigation the Court must he satisfied that the opposite
parties are very powerful and influential persons or the State
authorities like top police officials are involved and the
investigation has not been proceeded with in a proper direction
or it has been biased. In such an eventuality, in order to do
complete justice direction a to CBI to investigate the case can
be issued.
15. In the instant case, the grievance of the writ petitioners
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 17-07-2026
18:18:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:19273
12 WA-1810-2026
basically had been against the two constables and one Head
Constable. It was not a case where it could be held that the
State authorities were interested or involved in the incident.
Thus, in our opinion, it was not a fit case where investigation
could be handed over to CBI.
9. Learned counsel has further relied on the judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Common Cause v. Union of
India reported in (1999) 6 SCC 667 by referring to Para 174 to 176
which reads as under :-
174. The other direction, namely, the direction to CBI to
investigate “any other offence” is wholly erroneous and cannot be
sustained. Obviously, direction for investigation can be given only
if an offence is, prima facie, found to have been committed or a
person’s involvement is prima facie established, but a direction to
CBI to investigate whether any person has committed an offence
or not cannot be legally given . Such a direction would be contrary
to the concept and philosophy of “life” and “liberty” guaranteed to
a person under Article 21 of the Constitution. This direction is in
complete negation of various decisions of this Court in which the
concept of “life” has been explained in a manner which has infused
“life” into the letters of Article 21.
175. “Right to Life”, set out in Article 21, means something more
than mere survival or animal existence. (See: State of Maharashtra
v. Chandrabhan Tale [(1983) 3 SCC 387 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 391 :
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 17-07-2026
18:18:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:19273
13 WA-1810-2026
1983 SCC (Cri) 667 : AIR 1983 SC 803 : (1983) 3 SCR 337] .)This right also includes the right to live with human dignity and all
that goes along with it, namely, the bare necessities of life such as
adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter over the head and facilities
for reading, writing and expressing oneself in different forms,
freely moving about and mixing and commingling with fellow
human beings. [See: Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator,
Union Territory of Delhi [(1981) 1 SCC 608 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 212
: AIR 1981 SC 746 : (1981) 2 SCR 516] ; Olga Tellis v. Bombay
Municipal Corpn. [(1985) 3 SCC 545 : AIR 1986 SC 180, paras
33 & 34 : 1985 Supp (2) SCR 51] AIR (paras 33 and 34); Delhi
Transport Corpn. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress [1991 Supp (1)
SCC 600 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 1213 : AIR 1991 SC “101, paras 223,
234 & 259: 1990 Supp (1) SCR 142] AIR (paras 223, 234 and
259).] In Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. [AIR 1963 SC 1295 :
(1964) 1 SCR 332] domiciliary visit by the police was held to be
violative of Article 21.
176. A man has, therefore, to be left alone to enjoy “life” without
fetters. He cannot be hounded out by the police or CBI merely to
find out whether he has committed any offence or is living as a
law-abiding citizen. Even under Article 142 of the Constitution,
such a direction cannot be issued. While passing an order under
Article 142 of the Constitution, this Court cannot ignore the
substantive provision of law much less the constitutional rights
available to a person. (See: Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 17-07-2026
18:18:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:19273
14 WA-1810-2026
of India [(1998) 4 SCC 409: AIR 1998 SC 1895] .)
10. He has further relied on the judgment of Sakiri Vasu versus
State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 2 SCC 409 wherein it has held as
under :-
” 27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very
wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper
investigation, and for this purpose he can monitor the
investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly
(though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should
discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under
Section 482 CrPC simply because a person has a grievance that
his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being
registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police.
For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3)
before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail,
under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Magistrate or by filing a
criminal complaint under Section 200 CrPC and not by filing a
writ petition or a petition under Section 482 CrPC.
28. It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ
petition, but it is equally well settled that if there is an alternative
remedy the High Court should not ordinarily interfere.”
11. He has also relied on the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of Sujal Vishwas Attavar and Another vs State of Maharashtra
and Others reported at 2026 SCC Online SC 798 wherein it has been held as
under :-
7. Keeping in view the above exposition of law, we find that the
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
ought not to have been invoked when alternative equally efficacious
Statutory remedies were available. If a person has a grievance that his FIR
has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper
investigation is not being conducted, then the remedy does not ordinarily
lie in invoking the writ jurisdiction in the first instance, but in seeking
recourse to the statutory framework, unless of course the urgency of the
circumstances warrant otherwise.
…XXX ….
l1. The High Court is not bound to entertain a writ petition merely because
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 17-07-2026
18:18:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:19273
15 WA-1810-2026
a case of alleged inaction or negligence is made out against a statutory
authority. Ordinarily, where a statute provides a complete and efficacious
remedy, the same must be exhausted before invoking constitutional
jurisdiction [See: Sakiri Vasu (supra) and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe
(supra)]. In the present facts, the complainant Company, has not exhausted
the sequential statutory remedies available under BNSS. There is,
therefore, no foundation to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the
High Court for the reason that efficacious and efficient alternative
remedies exists. Hence, at this stage, we find the instant writ petition to
be premature, and, therefore, not fit to be entertained.”
12. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the
learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble High Court has erred in giving
premature findings on merits, which are highly prejudicial to the
investigation and trial. The learned Single Judge further gravely erred in
recording categorical findings touching upon the commission or non-
commission of the alleged offence. The observations and conclusions
recorded in the impugned order travel beyond the limited scope of writ
jurisdiction and virtually amount to an adjudication on the merits of the
criminal allegations. He has further submitted that it is a well-settled
principle of criminal jurisprudence that constitutional courts, while
exercising writ or inherent jurisdiction at a preliminary stage, should refrain
from recording definitive findings on disputed facts or the merits of the
accusations, as such observations may prejudice the rights of either party
during the investigation or trial. Lastly, by referring to the government
records produced in the memo of petition by way of a tabulated chart, he
submitted that a bare perusal of the said chart would unequivocally
demonstrate that there was not even a single day’s delay between the date of
payment and the date of granting permission to Dinesh Makwana. After
making these submissions, he summed up his arguments by pointing out the
following five main points for the consideration of this Writ Appeal, which
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 17-07-2026
18:18:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:19273
16 WA-1810-2026
read as under:
I. Suppression of original electronic device;
II. absence of primary electronic evidence;
III. availability of alternative remedy;
IV. disputed factual issues; and
V. lack of forensic verification.
13. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the appellant
prays that the present writ appeal be allowed pointing out some more
judgments on this issue. However, considering the paucity of time, he has
not referred to all those judgment in detail.
14. Per Contra, counsel for the respondent No.5 as well as counsel for
the counsel for the CBI has submitted that pursuant to the order passed by
the learned Single Judge, the CBI has already started investigation and after
registering the FIR as directed by the Hon’ble Court, the investigation is
going on and statements of some of the witnesses are also recorded and,
therefore, he has submitted that since the investigation is proceeded
substantive, this Court would not interfere with the order passed by the
learned Single Judge pursuant to the investigation conducting by the CBI
the matter.
15. Counsel for Respondent No. 5, drawing attention to the written
arguments filed in the present appeal, submitted that the appellant’s own
disclosure regarding the meeting at the mall, which took place subsequent to
the emergence of the said video clip, conclusively establishes the appellant’s
involvement in abetting the suicide of the deceased, Dinesh Makwana. HeSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 17-07-2026
18:18:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:19273
17 WA-1810-2026
contended that there was no plausible, legitimate reason for the appellant to
meet Respondent No. 5 at the mall, and labeled the narrative of
extortion/blackmailing as entirely concocted. He further submitted that the
learned Single Judge, after a thorough perusal of the record, rightly
concluded that the appellant, by virtue of being posted as an Assistant Excise
Commissioner at Dewas, would exert undue influence over the local police
machinery. Consequently, the learned Single Judge appropriately invoked
extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
transfer the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Furthermore, the Counsel raised a preliminary objection regarding the
maintainability of the present Writ Appeal, asserting that an appeal is legally
impermissible against an order passed by a Single Judge exercising criminal
jurisdiction. In support of this contention, he relied upon the Division Bench
judgments passed by this Court in W.A. No.677 of 2026 dated 10.03.2026 ,
passed by the Division Bench at Gwalior by referring to para 12, 13 and 14
of the said judgement and also judgment passed in W.A. No.1401/2019
dated 24.01.2020 by referring to para 14 and 15 of the said judgment and,
therefore, he has submitted that there is no substance in the present writ
appeal, which is required to be dismissed. More particularly, when the CBI
has already registered the case against the present appellant and investigation
is already going on and, therefore, he has submitted that no interference with
the impugned order is made out.
Para 12 to 14 of W.A. No.677 of 2026 dated 10.03.2026 reads
as under :-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 17-07-2026
18:18:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:19273
18 WA-1810-2026
12. It provides an appeal only arising out of order passed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. As per discussion held in Ram Kishan
Fauji (supra) proceedings under Article 226 of Constitution would be
original/civil proceedings and here powers exercised by learned Single
Judge is of original/criminal jurisdiction. Therefore, this distinction is to
be kept in mind while considering the moot question. This aspect is
discussed by the Full Bench in the case of Shailendra Kumar Vs.
Divisional Forest Officer and another, 2017(4) MPLJ 109. In para 18 the
Full Bench held in following manner:
18. We may clarify that the orders passed by the Judicial
Courts, subordinate to a High Court even in criminal matters
when challenged in proceedings before the High Courts are
only under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Thus no
intra court appeal would be maintainable against an order
passed by the Learned Single Judge in proceedings arising out
of an order passed by Judicial Courts, may be civil or criminal
proceedings.”
13. Relying upon the said judgment, the Division Bench in the case
of Pradeep Kori Vs. State of M.P. and another, 2020(4) MPLJ 332 also
held that writ appeal is not maintainable out of the order passed by learned
Single Judge in criminal proceedings.
14. Once a litigant exercised extraordinary/inherent/supervisory
criminal jurisdiction before learned Single Judge under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., then no appeal would lie before the Division Bench.
Para 14 and 15 passed in W.A. No.1401/2019 dated 24.01.2020 reads
as under :-
14. Similarly a question arose regarding maintainability of an intra
court appeal under Section 2(1) of Adhiniyam, 2005 against an order
passed by the learned Single Judge in writ jurisdiction arising out of an
award of Labour Court before the Full Bench of this court in the case of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 17-07-2026
18:18:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1927319 WA-1810-2026
Shailendra Kumar Vs. Divisional Forest Officer and another, 2017(4)MPLJ, 109. After referring to various pronouncements of the Apex Court
dealing with the jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227, the Full Bench
held that an order passed in a writ petition arising out of an award of a
Labour Court is composite order under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution. Therefore, intra court appeal against such order would be
maintainable. It was also recorded that the orders passed by Judicial
Courts, subordinate to a High Court even in criminal matters when
challenged in proceedings before High Courts are only under Article 227
of the Constitution. Thus, no intra court appeal would be maintainable
against an order passed by Single Judge in proceedings arising out of an
order passed by Judicial Court, may be civil or criminal proceedings.
Relevant para-18 of Full Bench is referred as under: “18. We may clarify
that the orders passed by the Judicial Courts, subordinate to a High Court
even in criminal matters when challenged in proceedings before the High
Courts are only under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Thus, no
intra court appeal would be maintainable against an order passed by the
learned Single Judge in proceedings arising out of an order passed by the
learned Single Judge in proceedings arising out of an order passed by
Judicial Courts, may be civil or criminal proceedings.
15. The law relating to maintainability of intra-court appeal in criminal
matter is well settled in the case of Ram Kishan Fauji(supra) and also by
the Full Bench of this court in the case of Shailendra Kumar (supra) where
it has been laid down that no writ appeal would be maintainable against an
order passed by the learned Single Judge in a proceeding arising out of an
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 17-07-2026
18:18:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:19273
20 WA-1810-2026
order passed by the Judicial Court either in civil or criminal proceedings.
Recently, the same view has been reiterated by a Coordinate Bench of this
court in W.A.No.821/2019 (Pradeep Kori Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
and another) decided on 14-01-2020.
16. We have heard and considered the rival submissions made by the
counsel for the parties at bar and we have also perused the record as well as
the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
17. The learned Single Judge while considering the Writ Petition
No.47622 of 2025 dated 18.04.2026, has passed the following directions
which reads as under :-
17] So far as the decision relied upon by the senior counsel for the
respondent No.5 in the case of Abhinav Mohan Delkar (Supra), regarding
ingredients of Section 306 of IPC are not made out is concemed, this
Court finds that this judgement is of no: avail to the respondent No.5 at
this juncture of the case, when the grievance of the petitioner is that even
the FIR is not being lodged in respect of her son’s death, who has also left
a suicide note making serious allegations of corruptions against a high
ranking officer, viz.,. the Assistant Commissioner of Excise Department of
the State Government.
18] In view of the same, the petition stands allowed to the extent that the
investigation of the present case shall be handed over by Police Station
Kanadia, District Indore to the CBI immediately, who shall register an FIR
and after investigation, bring the case to some logical conclusion.
18. In view of the aforesaid, Section 156 of the Cr.P.C. and 194 of the
BNSS is required to be considered which is reproduced as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 17-07-2026
18:18:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:19273
21 WA-1810-2026
Section 194 of BNSS: Police to enquire and report on suicide, etc.
1) Mandates that when a police officer receives information
about a death deemed unnatural or suspicious, they must
inform the Executive Magistrate, visit the scene, and create
a report with witnesses detailing the apparent cause of
death, including details of any injuries
(2) This report, signed by the police and witnesses, must be
sent to the District or Sub-divisional Magistrate within 24
hours.
(3) In cases involving suspicious female deaths, especially
within seven years of marriage, or if necessary, the body
must be forwarded for a medical examination, with the
option for relatives to be present.
Section 156 of Cr.P.C. – Police officer’s power to investigate cognizable
case :-
(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the
order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a
Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits
of such station would have power to inquire into or try under
the provisions of Chapter XIII.
(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at
any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was
one which such officer was not empowered under this section
to investigate.
(3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order
such an investigation as above-mentioned.
19. Considering the fact that the Hon’ble Apex Court has also considered
the powers of the writ court for directing such investigation and also scope of
the Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. and keeping in view the aforesaid extracts of
the the judgment’s which is reproduced hereinabove, in the case of Sujal
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 17-07-2026
18:18:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:19273
22 WA-1810-2026
Vishwas Attavar and Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in
[(2026) SCC OnLine SC 798, Sakiri Vasu vs. State of UP and Ors. [(2008) 2
SCC 409 and Common Cause v. Union of India(supra), it is relevant to note
that, although several judgments have been cited above regarding the
commission of an offence under Section 306 of the IPC, this Court is not
currently inclined to accept the contention regarding the applicability of
Section 306 of the IPC to the present case. This Court, exercising its writ
jurisdiction in a writ appeal, is considering whether in the exercise of its
power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Court can
straightaway direct the respondent authority to register an FIR and hand over
the investigation to the CBI. Doing so may amount to non-compliance with
the provisions of Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. / Section 194 of the BNSS. After
reviewing the aforementioned judgments cited by the learned counsel for the
appellant, this Court finds that the position of law is well-settled: the
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
ought not to be invoked when an alternative, efficacious statutory remedy is
available. If a person has a grievance that their FIR has not been registered
by the police, or that a proper investigation is not being conducted after
registration, the remedy does not ordinarily lie in invoking writ jurisdiction
in the first instance, but rather in seeking recourse through the statutory
framework.
20. In the present case, the petitioner of the writ petition (who is
Respondent No. 5 herein) could have approached the Magistrate by filing an
application under Section 156(3) or Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. Before doing
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 17-07-2026
18:18:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:19273
23 WA-1810-2026
so, Respondent No. 5 could have availed themselves of the remedies
available under Section 36 as well as Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. before the
concerned superior police officers. The fact that the writ petition was filed
within five days of handing over the pen drive demonstrates Respondent No.
5’s intention to abuse the process of law. They have sought to take undue
advantage of the sympathy arising from the unfortunate suicide of their near
relative. Furthermore, when passing the impugned order, the learned Single
Judge failed to consider the totality of the circumstances. Specifically, the
timeline speaks to the improper intentions of Respondent No. 5, the pen
drive was handed over to the police authority just five to six days prior to the
filing of the petition, and the communication to the higher authority was sent
merely one day before filing. Consequently, the filing of this petition must
be considered premature, as the police authorities were not granted sufficient
time to conduct a proper investigation.Moreover, considering the
surrounding circumstances, the pen drive produced is not the original device.
The counsel for the present appellant has rightly disputed its veracity, noting
that the video file was located within a “downloaded” folder. Had the
deceased recorded the video himself, it would not typically be found in a
downloaded folder. This argument carries substantial weight when
considering the relevant aspects of the matter. Therefore, this Court is of the
opinion that the judgments cited by the counsel for Respondent No. 5 are not
applicable to the facts of the present case.
21. From bare reading of the cited judgments clearly indicates that they
deal with situations where proceedings are initiated to challenge an order
passed by a competent criminal court or trial court. In the present case,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 17-07-2026
18:18:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:19273
24 WA-1810-2026
however, the situation is entirely distinct. The petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India has been filed straightaway, seeking the specific
reliefs prayed for in the writ petition, more particularly, the registration of a
First Information Report (FIR) against the present appellant. It is also
pertinent to note that due to the registration of the said FIR and the
subsequent proceedings, the appellant, who was serving as an Assistant
Excise Commissioner(Excise Department, Dewas) and currently stands
suspended has had to face immense professional and personal
embarrassment.
22. Before imparting, it is also fruitful to refer to the landmark judgment
State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Ors. (2011) 14 SCC 770, wherein
the Supreme Court of India dealt extensively with the scope of inherent
powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (CrPC) and the limitations governing directions for independent
investigations (such as by the whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court discussed
that the when the writ court can direct the CBI enquiry).Paragraph 71 to 75
are relevant which reads as under :-
71. The order impugned has rightly been challenged to be a nullity at least on
three grounds, namely, judicial bias; want of jurisdiction by virtue of
application of the provisions of Section 362 Cr.P.C. coupled with the
principles of constructive res judicata; and the Bench had not been assigned the
roster to entertain petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The entire judicial process appears to have been drowned to achieve a
motivated result which we are unable to approve of.
72. It is a settled legal proposition that if initial action is not in consonance
with law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall through for
the reason that illegality strikes at the root of the order. In such a fact-situation,
the legal maxim “sublato fundamento cadit opus” meaning thereby that
foundation being removed, structure/work falls, comes into play and applies on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 17-07-2026
18:18:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:19273
25 WA-1810-2026
all scores in the present case.
73. In Badrinath v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 3243; and State
of Kerala v. Puthenkavu N.S.S. Karayogam & Anr., (2001) 10 SCC 191, this
Court observed that once the basis of a ​ proceeding is gone, all consequential
acts, actions, orders would fall to the ground automatically and this principle is
applicable to judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative proceedings equally.
74. Similarly in Mangal Prasad Tamoli (dead) by Lrs. v.
Narvadeshwar Mishra (dead) by Lrs. & Ors., (2005) 3 SCC 422, this Court
held that if an order at the initial stage is bad in law, then all further
proceedings, consequent thereto, will be non est and have to be necessarily set
aside.
75. In C. Albert Morris v. K. Chandrasekaran & Ors. , (2006) 1 SCC 228, this
Court held that a right in law exists only and only when it has a lawful origin.
(See also: Upen Chandra Gogoi v. State of Assam & Ors., (1998) 3 SCC 381;
Satchidananda Misra v. State of Orissa & Ors., (2004) 8 SCC 599; Regional
Manager, SBI v. Rakesh Kumar Tewari, (2006) 1 SCC 530; and Ritesh Tewari
& Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 3823).
23. Considering all these aspects and the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex
Court mentioned above, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has
erred in straightaway directing the registration of the complaint as a First
Information Report (FIR) against the present appellant. This direction is not
in consonance with the provisions of Sections 154 and 156 of the Cr.P.C. (or
Section 194 of the BNSS). Therefore, by the impugned order, the High Court
has transgressed its judicial discretion.The process adopted by the learned
Single Judge of the High Court in the impugned order has led to greater
injustice rather than securing the ends of justice. The path charted by the
learned Single Judge inevitably reflects a biased approach on the basis of
misplaced sympathy. It was a case of misplaced sympathy or a course of
action that is untenable, being inconsistent with the legal framework. As
Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo famously observed, the judicial process must
remain anchored in established principles of law. The multidimensional
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 17-07-2026
18:18:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:19273
26 WA-1810-2026
detective process adopted by the learned Single Judge cannot be justified on
any rational legal principle.
24. Therefore, in view of the above, the appeal succeeds, and the
impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby quashed and set
aside. As a consequence, the FIR registered by the CBI is also quashed. We
further clarify that if Respondent No. 5 wishes to seek legal recourse, they
must follow the necessary procedure provided under the provisions of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita
(BNSS). Upon compliance with such formalities by Respondent No. 5, the
concerned authority or court may look into the matter in an appropriate
manner, considering the relevant material on its own merits and taking an
independent decision without being influenced by any observations made by
this Court.
Accordingly, the writ appeal stands disposed of.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT) (JAI KUMAR PILLAI)
JUDGE JUDGE
pn
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 17-07-2026
18:18:22
