Madhya Pradesh High Court
Panju Giri Goswami vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:33533
1 MCRC-11972-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
ON THE 29th OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 11972 of 2026
PANJU GIRI GOSWAMI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manish Datt - Senior Advocate with Shri Eshaan Datt -
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Abhijeet Awasthi - Deputy Advocate General for respondent
no.1/State.
Heard on : 16.04.2026
Pronounced on : 29.04.2026
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashment of FIR bearing Crime
No.473/2025 registered at Police Station Lakhanwara, District Seoni (M.P.)
for offences punishable under Sections 310(2), 126(2), 140(3), 61(2) and
238(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with charge sheet and all
consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Case of prosecution is that on 09.10.2025, one Sohan Lal Parmar, a
resident of Jalna, Maharashtra, lodged information at Police Station Kotwali,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 29-04-2026
18:56:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:33533
2 MCRC-11972-2026
Seoni alleging that his associate Mukhtar and driver Irfan Pathan had been
intercepted and robbed by personnel of Seoni Police. It was alleged that out
of a total sum of Rs. 2,96,50,000 being transported in a vehicle, an amount of
Rs.1,45,00,000 had been unlawfully taken by police officials. Upon receipt
of the complaint, the matter was escalated to senior police official, who
ordered a preliminary inquiry. Shri Ayush Gupta, Additional Superintendent
of Police, was appointed as the Inquiry Officer to ascertain the veracity of
the allegations.
3. During the course of inquiry, it was revealed that the complainant and
his associates were allegedly transporting a large sum of cash, suspected to
b e hawala money, in a Creta vehicle. The inquiry further disclosed that
information regarding such transportation had reached the then SDOP, Pooja
Pandey (co-accused). Acting upon the said information, Pooja Pandey
allegedly conducted a raid along with a team of police officials including
ASI Arpit Bhairam, Head Constables Ravindra Uike, Makhan Singh Inwati,
and Rajesh Janghela, Constables Jagdish Yadav, Yogendra Chaurasiya,
Subhash Sadaphal, Kedar Singh, Neeraj Rajpoot, and driver Reetesh Verma.
It is alleged that after intercepting the vehicle and recovering the cash
amount, the raiding party attempted to negotiate a settlement with the
occupants of the vehicle, demanding 75% of the recovered amount.
Subsequently, a sum of Rs.1,45,00,000 was allegedly taken by SDOP Pooja
Pandey and the individuals Mukhtar and Irfan were released.
4. The inquiry report further states that the present petitioner who was
informer of police, has been implicated on the allegation that he passed on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 29-04-2026
18:56:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:33533
3 MCRC-11972-2026
prior information to co-accused Pramod Soni who was constable in Crime
Branch, Jabalpur, who in turn informed co-accused Pankaj Mishra, DSP who
further informed main accused Pooja Pandey. The implication of the
petitioner is primarily based on call detail records (CDR) indicating
telephonic contact between the petitioner, and co-accused persons. The
Inquiry Officer, relying primarily on mobile phone call detail records and
Mobile Forensic Analysis Report, concluded that present petitioner, Pankaj
Mishra, and constable Pramod Soni were in contact before and after the
alleged incident with the raiding party, and inferred their complicity in the
alleged offence. During the course of investigation, an amount of
Rs.1,45,00,000/- was recovered from the possession of co-accused Pooja
Pandey and ASI Arpit Bhairam. Additionally, one Virendra Dixit, brother-in-
law of Pooja Pandey, was also implicated in the alleged offence.
5. On the basis of the aforesaid inquiry report, the police registered FIR
bearing Crime No.473/2025 at Police Station Lakhanwara, District Seoni,
and after investigation, filed the charge-sheet against all the accused persons,
including the present petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not a
member of the raiding party and had no role whatsoever in the alleged
interception or recovery of money. The entire case against the petitioner rests
solely on call detail records, which only indicate that calls were made, but do
not disclose the contents or nature of communication. He further submitted
that no call transcripts, recordings, or electronic evidence have been
produced to establish any conspiracy or illegal agreement. Upon receiving
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 29-04-2026
18:56:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:33533
4 MCRC-11972-2026
information from one Sanwla Ram on 08.10.2025, the petitioner
immediately passed such information to constable Pramod Soni, who passed
such information further. There is no evidence on record to show that the
petitioner is in any way connected in the said case. There is no evidence of
pre-meeting of minds, which is a sine qua non for establishing the offence of
criminal conspiracy. The CDR details merely give rise to suspicion and
cannot be equated with proof to make out the charges under alleged
offences. He further submitted that the case squarely falls within the category
of abuse of process of law, warranting interference by this Court. In support
of his contention, he has relied upon the following pronouncements :
1. Central Bureau of Investigation, Hydrabad Vs. K. Narayana Rao ,
reported in (2012) 9 SCC 512 .
2. Saju Vs. State of Kerala , reported in (2001) 1 SCC 378 .
3. Shyam Gupta and other Vs. State , reported in 203 SCC OnLine
Del 1490.
4. Kunwarpal Vs. State through Sho, P.S. Sepcial Cell, reported in
2024 SCC OnLine Del 1163 .
5. Esher Singh Vs. State of A.P. reported in (2004) 11 SCC 585 .
7. On the other side, counsel for the State opposed the petition by
submitting that the preliminary objection of State is regarding maitainability
of present petition as the petitioner has an efficacious and specific statutory
remedy available before the learned Trial Court by way of seeking discharge
at the appropriate stage of the proceedings and the petitioner instead of
availing the remedy of discharge, has prematurely invoked the jurisdiction
under Section 528 BNSS. On merits, the counsel for the State argued that theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 29-04-2026
18:56:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:33533
5 MCRC-11972-2026
material collected during investigation and filed along with the charge-sheet
clearly discloses the commission of cognizable offences and the involvement
of the present petitioner as an active conspirator. It is settled law that at the
stage of quashment, the Court is only required to examine whether a prima
facie case is made out and not to meticulously appreciate evidence or
conduct a mini-trial. The petitioner is not an innocent bystander, but a
keylink in the chain of conspiracy, who facilitated the commission of the
offence by passing on sensitive information with the malafide intention. On
08.10.2025, the petitioner forwarded an information to constable Pramod
Soni regarding transportation of a huge amount of cash who communicated
the said information to co-accused Pankaj Mishra. The said Pankaj Mishra
further transmitted the information to the main accused Pooja Pandey,
leading to the illegal interception and misappropriation of money. Thus, the
petitioner acted as the originator of the information chain, without which the
offence could not have been committed. He further argued that the
prosecution relies upon Call Detail Records (CDR) and their forensic
analysis, which reveal around 25 telephonic conversations between the
petitioner and Pramod Soni, out of which 7 calls were made after the
incident. There is existence of continuous communication before, during, and
even after the commission of the offence. These repeated and timed
communications are not random or innocuous, but form a consistent pattern
pointing towards coordinated action.
8. It is further submitted that conspiracy is generally hatched in secrecy,
and therefore, direct evidence is rarely available. The same can be
established through circumstantial evidence, including conduct and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 29-04-2026
18:56:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:33533
6 MCRC-11972-2026
communication patterns. The petitioner continued to remain in contact with
co-accused even after the offence was committed, which is wholly
inconsistent with his claim of bonafide conduct. It is further argued that
petitioner’s defence cannot be considered at this stage and cannot be
adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS. It is well settled that
quashing of FIR and charge sheet is an exceptional remedy, to be exercised
sparingly and the present case does not satisfy the parameters laid down for
quashment. He prays for dismissal of petition. In support of his
contentions, learned Deputy Advocate General has placed reliance on the
following judgments rendered by Hon’ble The Supreme Court :-
(i) Neeharika Infrastructure vs. State of Maharashtra [2021(19)SCC
401].
(ii) Ajay Kumar Das vs. State of Jharkhand [2011(12) SCC 319].
(iii) CBI vs. Arvind Khanna [2019(10) SCC 666].
(iv) State of Odisha vs. Pratima Mohanti [2022(16) SCC 703].
(v) CBI vs. Aryan Singh [2023(18) SCC 399].
(vi) Kaptan Singh vs. State of U.P. [2021 (9) SCC 35].
9. Heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the charge-sheet.
10. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material
available on record, this Court is called upon to consider the preliminary
objection raised by the respondent/State regarding the maintainability of the
present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023. The principal contention of the respondent is that the
petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of seeking discharge before
the learned Trial Court and, therefore, the present petition is premature and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 29-04-2026
18:56:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:33533
7 MCRC-11972-2026
not maintainable. This submission, though attractive at first blush, cannot be
accepted as universally correct. It is well settled that the existence of an
alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to the exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, particularly if the petitioner is able to
demonstrate that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse
of the process of law or would result in a miscarriage of justice. The
jurisdiction under the said provision is wide and is intended, inter alia, to
secure the ends of justice.
11. In the present case, the foundational allegation against the petitioner is
that he had passed on certain information regarding a vehicle allegedly
carrying suspicious cash to co-accused Pramod Soni who passed the same to
Pankaj Mishra who in turn passed such information to Pooja Pandey. Beyond
this, there is no direct material indicating his participation in the alleged
interception, negotiation, or misappropriation of money. Upon a careful and
comprehensive perusal of the material placed on record, particularly the
statements of the complainant Sohan Lal Parmar, Mukhtar Khan, driver-
Irfan, Aman Gurnani, co-accused Pooja Pandey, and other police personnel
including Arpit Bhairam, Neeraj Rajput, Subhash Sadafal, Makhan Singh
Inwati, Jagdish Yadav, Yogendra Chaurasia, Reetesh Verma, Kedar Singh,
Rajesh Janghela, Ajay Rai, as well as the statements of Deepak Mishra,
Additional Superintendent of Police, Seoni, and Pankaj Mishra, this Court
finds that there is no incriminating material whatsoever against the present
petitioner. None of the witnesses, including the complainant and his
associates, have made any allegation against the petitioner. Significantly,
there is no material to show that the petitioner was in any manner in contact
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 29-04-2026
18:56:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:33533
8 MCRC-11972-2026
with the complainant party. No call detail or communication has been
brought on record indicating any interaction between the petitioner and the
complainant or his associates at any point of time. The statements of the
complainant and other witnesses consistently attribute all overt acts to co-
accused Pooja Pandey and the raiding party. There is no allegation that the
petitioner was present at the spot, handled the cash, or derived any pecuniary
benefit. It is further evident that the petitioner was not a member of the
raiding party and had no direct role in the interception of the vehicle,
recovery of the amount, or the alleged subsequent acts attributed to the co-
accused persons.
12. The entire prosecution case against the petitioner rests on a singular
allegation that he was in constant telephonic contact with co-accused Pankaj
Mishra, Pramod Soni and other co-accused persons, thereby suggesting his
involvement in a criminal conspiracy. The prosecution seeks to implicate the
petitioner primarily on the basis of call detail records and mobile forensic
analysis indicating frequent communication between the petitioner and co-
accused. However, the investigation itself reveals that the petitioner had
merely forwarded information received from one other person to Pramod
Soni. Beyond this, no overt act has been attributed to him.
13. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the case
diary and charge-sheet, no overt act has been attributed to him in execution
of the alleged crime. The prosecution relies heavily on CDRs. However,
CDRs merely establish that calls were exchanged; same do not disclose the
contents of conversation. No transcripts, voice recordings, or electronic
messages have been placed on record. Mere telephonic contact, without
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 29-04-2026
18:56:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:33533
9 MCRC-11972-2026
anything more, cannot establish criminal conspiracy.
1 4 . Further, for an offence of conspiracy, there must be cogent material
indicating prior agreement or meeting of minds. In the present, case no such
agreement is demonstrated. No communication directly linking the petitioner
with the main accused Pooja Pandey has been established and the
prosecution case is based on inference and suspicion, not concrete evidence.
There is no evidence to indicate that the petitioner had any knowledge of, or
participation in, the alleged illegal retention or misappropriation of the
recovered amount. A crucial aspect of merits consideration is that the
prosecution relies solely on call detail records. There is no call recording, no
transcript of conversations, and no electronic chats or messages seized or
produced before the Court. In absence of the contents of communication, the
mere existence of calls without any substantive content demonstrating a prior
meeting of minds or agreement to commit an illegal act, howsoever frequent
cannot by itself constitute criminal conspiracy under Section 61(2) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Telephonic contact, in the nature of official
communication between police officials and informer, cannot be elevated to
incriminating evidence without any supporting material indicating unlawful
intent or agreement. Further, the investigation report dated 13.10.2025 itself
proposed registration of FIR primarily against the main accused Pooja
Pandey and other members of the raiding party. Even the principal accused
has not made a single statement implicating the present petitioner in the
alleged offence. This omission assumes significance and weakens the
prosecution case against the petitioner.
15. As regards Sections 140(3), 310(2) and 126(2) BNS, which relate to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 29-04-2026
18:56:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:33533
10 MCRC-11972-2026
kidnapping, dacoity and wrongful restraint, respectively, there is not even a
whisper in the entire prosecution material attributing any overt act to the
petitioner in the alleged commission of these offences. The gravamen of
these allegations pertains to the acts allegedly committed at the spot by the
raiding party. The petitioner’s role, even as per the prosecution, is too remote
and disconnected to attract these provisions. In absence of any corroborative
material, mere existence of call records, without more, is insufficient to infer
complicity or establish any nexus between the petitioner and the alleged
offence.
16. The invocation of Section 238(b) BNS on the basis of alleged deletion
of electronic data is equally unsustainable. There is no material to show that
such deletion was with the intent to cause disappearance of evidence of an
offence. The allegation regarding deletion of the video is misconceived. The
said video, as reflected from the material on record, was merely
informational in nature, intended to demonstrate general techniques used in
concealing or detecting illicit activities, particularly in cases involving
hawala transactions. It cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be construed as
having been shared with any criminal intent or in furtherance of the alleged
offence. Even otherwise, its circulation, if at all, appears to be in good faith
and for operational awareness in the course of duty, rather than to facilitate
any illegal activity. In absence of any corroborative material linking the said
video to the commission of the alleged offence, no adverse inference can be
drawn against the petitioner.
17. There is also no recovery effected from the petitioner, nor any evidence
of wrongful gain. Even if the entire prosecution case is accepted as it stands,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 29-04-2026
18:56:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:33533
11 MCRC-11972-2026
the act of the petitioner in passing on information regarding suspicious
movement of cash cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to fall
outside the ambit of his citizen duties or informer duties. In the absence of
any material indicating dishonest intention or active participation in the
alleged misappropriation, the continuation of criminal proceedings against
the petitioner would be unjustified.
18. The implication of the petitioner thus appears to be founded merely on
suspicion arising out of call detail records. It is a settled principle of criminal
jurisprudence that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof.
While suspicion may justify investigation or interrogation, it cannot form the
basis of a charge-sheet in absence of cogent, credible, and legally admissible
evidence. It is well settled that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure/528 of BNSS, this Court
does not undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence, but is nevertheless
duty-bound to examine whether the material collected during investigation
discloses the commission of any offence or raises a grave suspicion against
the accused. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prafulla Kumar Samal reported
in (1979) 3 SCC 4 has held that where the material gives rise only to some
suspicion and not grave suspicion, the accused is entitled to be discharged,
and continuation of proceedings would be unjustified. The relevant para is
quoted hereinunder :
“10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned
above, the following principles emerge:
(1) That the Judge while considering the question of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 29-04-2026
18:56:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3353312 MCRC-11972-2026
framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the
undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited
purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against
the accused has been made out.
(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose
grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly
explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and
proceeding with the trial.
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally
depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a
rule of universal application. By and large however if two views
are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence
produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not
grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his
right to discharge the accused.
(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of
the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and
experienced court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a
mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad
probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the
documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities
appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that
the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of
the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 29-04-2026
18:56:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:33533
13 MCRC-11972-2026
19. The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prafulla
Kumar Samal (supra), though rendered in the context of framing of charge,
has a clear and persuasive bearing while examining the legality of criminal
proceedings at the threshold. The Court therein held that where the material
on record gives rise only to some suspicion and not grave suspicion, the
accused ought not to be compelled to face trial. By necessary analogy, this
principle informs the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure/528 of BNSS as well, inasmuch as
continuation of proceedings founded merely on conjectural or weak
suspicion would amount to an abuse of process. It is equally well settled that
where the allegations and material, even if taken at face value, fail to disclose
the essential ingredients of an offence or do not rise above mere suspicion,
the Court would be justified in interdicting the proceedings at the inception.
20. In the present case, the prosecution primarily relies upon alleged
WhatsApp calls and telephonic communications between the parties.
However, it is an admitted position that there is no transcript, recording, or
legally admissible electronic evidence placed on record to establish the
contents of such conversations. At best, the material produced only indicates
that certain calls were exchanged, which merely proves the factum of
communication and not the substance thereof. In absence of any
authenticated record in terms of the requirements of electronic evidence, the
same cannot be treated as substantive material capable of establishing the
ingredients of the alleged offence.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 29-04-2026
18:56:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:33533
14 MCRC-11972-2026
21. In the present case, the material on record fails to disclose any meeting
of minds, prior agreement, or concerted action on the part of the petitioner so
as to constitute an offence of conspiracy or any other alleged offence. The
essential ingredients of the offences invoked are conspicuously absent qua
the petitioner.
22. Thus, the entire edifice of the prosecution case rests on conjectures and
unverified inferences, which do not travel beyond the realm of mere
suspicion. The material on record fails to disclose any proximate or direct
nexus between the petitioner and the alleged offence, nor does it give rise to
the degree of grave suspicion as contemplated in Prafulla Kumar Samal
(supra).
23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported
i n 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has authoritatively laid down the parameters
governing the exercise of inherent powers for quashing of FIR and criminal
proceedings. The Court held that where the allegations made in the FIR or
the material collected during investigation, even if taken at their face value
and accepted in entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make
out a case against the accused, such proceedings deserve to be quashed. It
was further held that where the allegations are so absurd and inherently
improbable that no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there
is sufficient ground for proceeding, or where the proceedings are manifestly
attended with mala fide and instituted with an ulterior motive, the High
Court would be justified in exercising its jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the
process of law. The said judgment thus clearly enunciates that criminal
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 29-04-2026
18:56:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:33533
15 MCRC-11972-2026
prosecution cannot be permitted to continue on the basis of mere suspicion,
conjectures, or unsupported allegations. The relevant para is quoted herein
under :
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the
principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions
relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article
226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which
we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the
following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such
power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of
any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may
not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and
sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae
and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein
such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value
and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officersSignature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 29-04-2026
18:56:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:33533
16 MCRC-11972-2026
under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not
disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence,
no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order
of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are
so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance
of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the
Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted
with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused
and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 29-04-2026
18:56:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:33533
17 MCRC-11972-2026
24. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the present
petitioner is wholly unwarranted and amounts to abuse of the process of law.
The allegations against the petitioner are not supported by any substantive
evidence and are based merely on conjectures and inferences drawn from call
detail records, which by themselves are insufficient to establish criminal
liability.
25. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the essential
ingredients of offences punishable under Sections 310(2), 126(2), 140(3),
61(2) and 238(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are not made out
against the present petitioner and the petition deserves to be and is hereby
allowed. The charge-sheet and all consequential criminal proceedings arising
out of Crime No. 473/2025 registered at Police Station Lakhanwara, District
Seoni (M.P.), insofar as they relate to the present petitioner, are hereby
quashed. The petitioner is discharged from above mentioned charges.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI)
JUDGE
rv
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 29-04-2026
18:56:20
