Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajsingh Ghuraiya vs Ravindra Singh Ghuraiya on 19 February, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6645
1 MCRC-115-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 19th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 115 of 2018
RAJSINGH GHURAIYA AND OTHERS
Versus
RAVINDRA SINGH GHURAIYA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ajit Singh Bhadoria - Advocate for the petitioners.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of the order dated 06.02.2016 passed
by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior in Complaint Case
No. 1042/2016, whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of
offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code against the petitioners.
2. As per the complaint filed by the respondents/complainants, on
27.01.2015 at about 8:00 PM, the complainant was going in his vehicle near
the GDA Office at City Center, Gwalior along with Parvendra Singh and
Jagvendra Singh. It is alleged that the petitioners arrived in a white Scorpio
vehicle and stopped the complainant by blocking his way. The complainant
was allegedly dragged out of his vehicle by holding his collar and was
assaulted with kicks and fists. The petitioners also abused him and threatened
that if he did not depose in their favour in a court case on 11 February, they
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR
Signing time: 09-03-2026
19:21:43
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6645
2 MCRC-115-2018
would kill him and harm his wife and daughter. The complainant further
alleged that since it was late in the night, he could not lodge the complaint
immediately and on the next day he sent a written complaint through
registered post to the Police Station Padav and the Superintendent of Police,
Gwalior. As no action was taken by the police, the complainant filed a
private complaint before the Magistrate. The learned Magistrate recorded the
statements of the complainants under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and witnesses
under Section 202 Cr.P.C., and thereafter passed the impugned order dated
06.02.2016 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 323, 341, 506 and
34 IPC against the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complaint
filed by the respondents is false and has been lodged with mala fide intention
to take revenge. It is submitted that petitioner No.1 is an Advocate and has
been appearing against the complainant in several criminal and civil
proceedings pending before different courts at Gwalior. Due to this
professional rivalry, the complainant has filed the present false complaint as
a counterblast. It is further contended that the alleged incident took place at a
busy public place near GDA Office where shops, coaching institutes and
offices were open at the relevant time, yet no independent witness has
supported the version of the complainant. It is also submitted that the
complainant did not lodge any immediate report at the nearby police station
or police outpost though both were situated at a short distance from the
alleged place of occurrence. Learned counsel further submitted that during
the preliminary inquiry conducted by the police, the complaint was found to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR
Signing time: 09-03-2026
19:21:43
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6645
3 MCRC-115-2018
be false and motivated and the police report stated that no such incident had
occurred at the alleged place. It is further argued that the vehicle number
mentioned in the complaint does not belong to the complainant and several
material facts mentioned in the complaint are incorrect. Therefore, the order
of the Magistrate taking cognizance is illegal and amounts to abuse of the
process of the Court. On these grounds, the petitioners have prayed for
quashment of the impugned order as well as the complaint proceedings.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the petition and
submitted that the present M.Cr.C. is not maintainable, as it is directed
against an intermediate order which is revisable. To bolster their
submissions reliance was placed in the matter of X Vs. State of NCT passed
in CRL.M.C. No.4267/2019 and CRL. M.A. No.34550/2019 decided on
13.10.2015 by Delhi High Court on merits it was argued that the Magistrate
has passed the impugned order after recording the statements of the
complainant and his witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and after
applying judicial mind to the material available on record, thus it needs no
interference.
5. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties and has perused the record.
6. This Court though is in confirmity with the legal position that
order taking cognizance which is under challenge in this petition, is an
intermediate order and therefore, is revisable, looking to the old pendency of
the matter, now deem it appropriate to relegate the petitioners to avail the
remedy, instead find it appropriate to decide the petition on merits. From the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR
Signing time: 09-03-2026
19:21:43
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6645
4 MCRC-115-2018
record it appears that the complainant has specifically alleged assault and
criminal intimidation by the petitioners. The learned Magistrate has recorded
the statements of the complainant and the supporting witnesses under
Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. After considering the material placed before
him, the Magistrate found prima facie sufficient grounds to proceed against
the petitioners for offences under Sections 323, 341, 506 and 34 IPC. At the
stage of cognizance, the Court is not required to conduct a detailed
examination of the evidence or to evaluate the defence of the accused. The
pleas raised by the petitioners, such as previous enmity, correctness of the
allegations, ownership of the vehicle, and reliability of witnesses, are matters
which can only be determined during trial on the basis of evidence. The
police report relied upon by the petitioners cannot by itself be a ground to
quash the complaint proceedings when the Magistrate, after independent
application of mind, has found sufficient material to proceed in the matter.
7. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be
exercised sparingly and only in cases where the complaint does not disclose
any offence or where continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse
of the process of the Court. In the present case, the allegations in the
complaint, if taken at face value, clearly disclose the commission of
cognizable offences. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or
perversity in the order passed by the learned Magistrate.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the
present petition. Accordingly, the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
dismissed. The order had been passed in special circumstances, therefore,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR
Signing time: 09-03-2026
19:21:43
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6645
5 MCRC-115-2018
shall not be treated as a precedent.
9. The proceedings before the trial Court shall continue in accordance
with law.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
(aspr)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR
Signing time: 09-03-2026
19:21:43
