Kunal Singh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34174
1 MCRC-39754-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
th
ON THE 4 OF NOVEMBER, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 39754 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC030219892026
KUNAL SINGH YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR
Appearance:
Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Satendra Singh Sikarwar - PP for the State.
None for respondent No.2, though served.
ORDER
This petition under Section 528 of the BNSS has been preferred by the
petitioner seeking quashment of FIR registered at Police Station- Kampoo,
District Gwalior, in connection with Crime No.110/2026 for offences
punishable under Sections 140(3), 87, 126(2) and 61(2) of theBNS and
Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959, as well as all consequential criminal
proceedings arising therefrom, insofar as they relate to the present petitioner.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 06.05.2026, the prosecutrix,
aged about 19 years, had gone to Mahatma Gandhi College of Law, Gwalior.
According to the report lodged by her mother, at around 2:30 p.m., she
received information from the brother of one of the college seniors of the
prosecutrix that the co-accused, namely, Jeetu Tomar, had allegedly abducted
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/6/2026
4:55:01 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34174
2 MCRC-39754-2026
the prosecutrix from the college in a white-coloured Baleno car by

threatening and forcibly taking her along with him. It was further alleged that
another person was accompanying the main accused, whose identity was
initially not known to the complainant. On the basis of the aforesaid report,
Crime No.110/2026 was registered initially for offences punishable under
Sections 140(3) and 87 of the BNS. During investigation, the prosecutrix was
recovered on 07.05.2026. Her statements, as well as those of the other
witnesses, were recorded. Subsequently, offences under Sections 126(2) and
61(2) of the BNS and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act were also added. The
main accused Jeetu Tomar was arrested and a country-made pistol was
allegedly recovered from his possession. The vehicle allegedly used in the
commission of the offence was also seized.
3. During investigation, the names of other persons, including the
present petitioner, surfaced. Accordingly, the petitioner was arrayed as an
accused along with the other co-accused persons. Upon completion of
investigation, charge-sheet No.104/2026 dated 22.07.2026 was filed against
the accused persons, including the present petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an
18-year-old law student and has been unnecessarily implicated in the present
crime. It is contended that the FIR, as lodged by the mother of the
prosecutrix, specifically attributes the alleged act of abduction to the main
accused Jeetu Tomar and refers to another unidentified person accompanying
him. The FIR does not contain any allegation whatsoever against the present
petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the prosecution has
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/6/2026
4:55:01 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34174
3 MCRC-39754-2026
attempted to attribute a role to the petitioner on the allegation that he was

keeping information about the movements of the prosecutrix and was
supplying such information to the main accused. However, the aforesaid
allegation is not supported by any independent or reliable material collected
during investigation. It is submitted that the prosecutrix and the main
accused were acquainted with each other and had remained in a relationship
for a considerable period. Their communication was through mobile phones,
whereas the present petitioner was not found to be involved in their
communication. Even the call detail records of the relevant period, including
the period of approximately three months preceding the incident, do not
establish any communication between the petitioner and the main accused. It
is further contended that the statements of the prosecutrix recorded during
investigation and her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS do
not disclose any specific act of participation on the part of the petitioner in
the alleged abduction or in the subsequent events. According to learned
counsel, even if the reference to the petitioner in the statement under Section
183 of the BNSS is taken into consideration, the same does not disclose any
particular instance of communication, assistance, meeting of minds or active
participation by him in the alleged criminal conspiracy. Learned counsel has
also drawn the attention of this Court to the statements of the eyewitnesses,
namely, Vaibhav Rajbhan and Dolly Sansoiya, as well as the statement of the
mother of the prosecutrix. It is submitted that none of these witnesses
attributes any overt act to the present petitioner. The entire incident of
alleged forcible abduction has been attributed to the main accused Jeetu
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/6/2026
4:55:01 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34174
4 MCRC-39754-2026
Tomar and the person who was driving the vehicle. The petitioner is neither

alleged to have been present at the place of occurrence nor is he alleged to
have accompanied the prosecutrix during the subsequent journey. It is also
submitted that the memorandum of the main accused Jeetu Tomar does not
disclose any specific role played by the petitioner in the alleged incident.
Even the charge-sheet, when examined as a whole, does not disclose any
independent material demonstrating that the petitioner had conspired with the
main accused or had intentionally facilitated the commission of the alleged
offence. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel submits that continuation
of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse
of the process of law and, therefore, the FIR and all consequential
proceedings, insofar as they relate to the petitioner, deserve to be quashed.
5. Per contra, learned PP for the respondent/State opposed the prayer
and submitted that the prosecutrix, in her statements recorded during
investigation, has referred to the involvement of the petitioner along with
other co-accused persons. In particular, attention is invited to her statement
under Section 183 of the BNSS, wherein she has referred to the petitioner
and another student as persons who were keeping information regarding her
movements. It is further submitted on behalf of the State that the
investigation has been conducted and the charge-sheet has already been filed
against the petitioner and other co-accused persons. According to the
prosecution, the allegations regarding the supply of information concerning
the movements and location of the prosecutrix to the main accused form part
of the alleged conspiracy and the respective roles of the accused persons are
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/6/2026
4:55:01 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34174
5 MCRC-39754-2026
required to be examined during trial. It is, therefore, prayed that the petition

be dismissed.
6. None for respondent No.2/prosecutrix, though served.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record along
with case diary.
8. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the
BNSS is intended to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and to secure
the ends of justice. Though the power of quashing criminal proceedings is
required to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, it is equally well
settled that where the allegations contained in the FIR or the material
collected during investigation, even if taken at their face value, do not
disclose the commission of an offence by a particular accused, the
continuation of criminal proceedings against such accused would not serve
any legitimate purpose.
9. In the present case, the controversy is not required to be examined
with reference to the allegations against the main accused Jeetu Tomar or the
alleged incident of abduction as a whole. The limited question which arises
for consideration is whether the material collected during investigation
discloses sufficient factual foundation to attribute any criminal involvement
to the present petitioner, Kunal Singh Yadav.
10. At the outset, this Court finds that the FIR lodged by the mother of
the prosecutrix does not contain the name of the present petitioner. The
allegation in the FIR is specifically directed against Jeetu Tomar, who was
allegedly insisting upon marrying the prosecutrix and had allegedly taken her
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/6/2026
4:55:01 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34174
6 MCRC-39754-2026
away forcibly in a white-coloured Baleno car. The FIR refers to another

person accompanying the main accused, whose identity was not known to
the complainant at that stage. Thus, the FIR, by itself, does not disclose any
specific act or role attributable to the present petitioner. It is true that the
absence of the name of an accused in the FIR, by itself, cannot be a ground
for quashing the criminal proceedings, particularly where subsequent
investigation may disclose his involvement. However, in the present case, the
subsequent material collected during investigation also requires careful
examination to ascertain whether the petitioner has been connected with the
alleged offence through any specific and legally sustainable material.
11. The most significant aspect of the matter is the statement of the
prosecutrix herself. In her statement recorded during investigation, she has
narrated the entire incident commencing from her arrival at the college, the
alleged abduction from outside the college, the journey from Gwalior to
Uttar Pradesh and the subsequent events until her recovery. She has
attributed the act of forcibly taking her into the vehicle to Jeetu Tomar and
has identified the person accompanying him as the person who was driving
the vehicle. She has also narrated the alleged role of Akash Solanki and
Mayank Rawat with regard to the information concerning her location and
movements.
12. However, upon a careful reading of the aforesaid statement, this
Court finds that no particular act of the present petitioner has been described
by the prosecutrix in relation to the actual occurrence. There is no allegation
that the petitioner was present at the college at the time of the alleged
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/6/2026
4:55:01 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34174
7 MCRC-39754-2026
abduction, that he stopped the prosecutrix, that he facilitated her forcible

removal, that he accompanied the main accused, or that he participated in
any manner in the subsequent journey.
13. The statement of the prosecutrix under Section 183 of the BNSS
has also been perused. In the said statement, she has referred to two students,
namely, Mayank and Kunal, as persons who were keeping information about
her. She has further stated that Akash was communicating with Jeetu Tomar
and informing him about her movements, whereas Mayank was supplying
information regarding her updates.
14. The aforesaid statement, when read as a whole, does not disclose
any particular instance of communication between the present petitioner and
the main accused, nor does it specify the date, time, mode or nature of any
communication allegedly made by the petitioner. No particular message,
telephone call or other act of assistance attributable to the petitioner has been
identified in the said statement. The statement also does not attribute to the
petitioner any participation in the actual abduction or in the subsequent
confinement or movement of the prosecutrix.
15. This Court is conscious of the fact that an allegation of conspiracy
or facilitation need not invariably be established through direct evidence at
the stage of investigation. However, the mere reference to a person's name,
without disclosure of any particular conduct or material indicating his
participation in the alleged design, cannot automatically be treated as
sufficient to subject him to a criminal trial for serious offences. The
distinction between a mere acquaintance with the other accused persons and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/6/2026
4:55:01 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34174
8 MCRC-39754-2026
intentional participation in a criminal conspiracy is required to be kept in

view. Criminal liability cannot be fastened merely because the petitioner was
a fellow student or acquaintance of the prosecutrix and the other co-accused
persons. There must be some material, at least prima facie, indicating that the
petitioner had knowingly participated in, facilitated or shared the alleged
criminal design.
16. Another important circumstance which weighs with this Court is
the material concerning the call detail records. As per the material placed
before this Court, the call detail records of the main accused Jeetu Tomar for
the relevant period, including approximately three months preceding the
incident, do not establish any communication between him and the present
petitioner.
17. It is pertinent to note that the prosecution itself has relied upon the
call detail records of the main accused to demonstrate communication
between Jeetu Tomar and certain other co-accused persons. However, no
corresponding material has been brought to the notice of this Court
demonstrating any such communication between the main accused and the
present petitioner. The prosecution has also not been able to point out any
specific call, message or other electronic communication connecting the
petitioner with the alleged preparation or execution of the offence.
18. The absence of call detail records, by itself, may not conclusively
rule out the possibility of a conspiracy, as such an arrangement can be
established through other circumstances and material. Nevertheless, when
the allegation against the petitioner is substantially founded upon the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/6/2026
4:55:01 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34174
9 MCRC-39754-2026
assertion that he was supplying information regarding the movements of the

prosecutrix to the main accused, the absence of any corresponding
communication or other independent corroborative material assumes
considerable significance. The material available on record, therefore, does
not provide any independent corroboration to the allegation that the
petitioner was actively keeping surveillance over the prosecutrix or was
supplying information to the main accused for the purpose of facilitating the
alleged abduction. The allegation, in the absence of any particular instance or
supporting material, remains general and unsubstantiated insofar as the
present petitioner is concerned.
19. This Court has also examined the statements of the eyewitnesses,
namely, Vaibhav Rajbhan and Dolly Sansoiya and other. All the said
witnesses have narrated the incident of the alleged forcible abduction from
outside the college. Their statements attribute the act of stopping the scooter
of the prosecutrix, pulling her towards the vehicle and forcibly taking her
inside the vehicle to Jeetu Tomar. They have also referred to another person
who was driving the vehicle. Neither of the aforesaid eyewitnesses has
attributed any specific overt act to the present petitioner. There is no
allegation in their statements that the petitioner was present at the place of
occurrence, that he assisted the main accused in stopping the prosecutrix or
that he participated in the act of forcibly taking her away.
20. Similarly, the statement of the mother of the prosecutrix, who is
also the complainant in the present case, does not disclose any specific role
of the petitioner. Her statement is primarily based upon the information
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/6/2026
4:55:01 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34174
10 MCRC-39754-2026
received by her regarding the alleged abduction and the previous conduct of

the main accused Jeetu Tomar. She has also referred to the persons who
allegedly witnessed the incident. However, no specific act of participation
has been attributed to the present petitioner. Thus, the statements of the
eyewitnesses and the mother of the prosecutrix, when considered
collectively, do not provide any material connecting the petitioner with the
actual incident or any specific act of assistance in the commission thereof.
21. The fact that the charge-sheet has been filed does not, by itself,
foreclose the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS. The
power to quash criminal proceedings may be exercised even after submission
of the final report, where the material collected during investigation, taken at
its face value, does not disclose the commission of an offence by the accused
concerned.
22. In the present case, the prosecution has collected material relating
to the alleged abduction, recovery of the prosecutrix, seizure of the vehicle,
recovery of the firearm from the main accused and the communications
allegedly exchanged between certain co-accused persons. However, insofar
as the present petitioner is concerned, the material does not disclose any
specific overt act demonstrating his participation in the alleged offence.
There is no material to show that he was present at the place of occurrence,
that he accompanied the main accused, that he participated in the forcible
abduction, that he was involved in the subsequent journey or that he had any
role in the alleged use or possession of the firearm.
23. Even the memorandum of the main accused Jeetu Tomar, as
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/6/2026
4:55:01 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34174
11 MCRC-39754-2026
reproduced in the case diary, does not disclose any specific act performed by

the present petitioner in the alleged commission of the offence. The
prosecution has not been able to demonstrate any independent material
which could connect the petitioner with the alleged plan or its execution. The
prosecution cannot be permitted to proceed against an accused merely on the
basis of an omnibus allegation, particularly when the entire material
collected during investigation is conspicuously silent with regard to his
specific participation in the alleged criminal acts. The filing of a charge-
sheet is not a substitute for the existence of material disclosing the
ingredients of the offences alleged against each individual accused. This
Court is not undertaking an assessment of the truthfulness of the prosecutrix
or the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. Nor is this Court expressing
any opinion regarding the allegations against the main accused or the other
co-accused persons. The consideration is confined strictly to the material
available against the present petitioner and the question as to whether such
material provides a sufficient basis for continuation of criminal proceedings
against him.
24. The principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction for
quashing criminal proceedings have been consistently reiterated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. In State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and
Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon'ble Supreme Court illustrated the
categories of cases in which the High Court may exercise its inherent
jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of law. In particular, categories
(1) and (3) indicate that where the allegations made in the FIR, even if
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/6/2026
4:55:01 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34174
12 MCRC-39754-2026
accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute an offence against the

accused, or where the uncontroverted allegations and the evidence collected
in support thereof do not disclose the commission of any offence by such
accused, interference by the High Court would be justified.
25. The aforesaid principles have been applied by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Ramesh Chandra Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022
INSC 1233, decided on 28.11.2022. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that where the complaint and the material collected during
investigation did not disclose any act or participation of the appellants in the
commission of the alleged offences, continuation of criminal proceedings
against them would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The Supreme
Court specifically held that the High Court ought to have examined whether
any active or passive role had been attributed to the accused persons in the
alleged commission of the crime and ultimately quashed the FIR and
consequential proceedings qua those appellants.
26. The aforesaid decision assumes considerable significance in the
facts of the present case. Here also, although the petitioner has been arrayed
as an accused along with the principal accused and other co-accused persons,
the material collected during investigation does not disclose any specific act
of participation on his part. Neither the FIR nor the statements of the
eyewitnesses, the mother of the prosecutrix or the detailed narration of the
prosecutrix disclose any particular overt act attributable to the petitioner in
the alleged abduction. The mere fact that the petitioner's name has surfaced
during investigation, without any supporting material establishing his
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/6/2026
4:55:01 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34174
13 MCRC-39754-2026
participation, cannot by itself constitute a sufficient ground for continuation

of criminal proceedings against him.
27. Similarly, in Smt. Rekha Jain and Another v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Others, Criminal Appeal No.136 of 2022, decided on
03.02.2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined a situation where the
principal allegations were directed against other accused persons and no
prima facie material was available to establish the involvement of the
appellants. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that continuation of
criminal proceedings against persons against whom no prima facie case was
disclosed would amount to abuse of the process of law and accordingly
quashed the proceedings insofar as those appellants were concerned. The
said decision reinforces the principle that the criminal liability of each
accused must be examined with reference to the allegations and material
specifically attributable to that accused, and mere implication along with
other accused persons cannot be treated as sufficient.
28. More recently, in Redla Jyothsna and Another v. Sowmya Lingam
and Another, Criminal Appeal No.1694 of 2025, decided on 01.04.2025, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings where the FIR
contained vague allegations without reference to particular dates or specific
acts of the accused persons and the charge-sheet merely reproduced the
allegations without referring to any particular material or evidence collected
during investigation establishing their complicity. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that where the charge-sheet does not disclose even prima facie
material connecting the accused with the alleged crime, continuation of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/6/2026
4:55:01 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34174
14 MCRC-39754-2026
proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law.

29. The aforesaid judgment is particularly relevant to the present
controversy. In the present case also, the prosecution has not been able to
demonstrate any specific act, communication or other independent material
establishing the participation of the petitioner in the alleged offence. The
charge-sheet, when examined qua the petitioner, does not disclose any
particular instance of his having communicated the movements of the
prosecutrix to the main accused or having otherwise facilitated the alleged
abduction. Thus, the mere reference to the petitioner's name, without a
corresponding factual foundation demonstrating his complicity, cannot be
treated as sufficient to sustain the prosecution.
30. So far as the allegation of criminal conspiracy is concerned, the
law requires the existence of an agreement between two or more persons to
commit an illegal act or to achieve a lawful object by illegal means. In Ram
Prakash Chadha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 INSC 522; (2024) 10 SCC
651, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while examining the ingredients of criminal
conspiracy, reiterated that the essential requirement is an agreement between
two or more persons to commit an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by
illegal means. The Court further examined whether the material disclosed
any basis to attribute such conspiracy to the accused and emphasised that
mere use of the expression 'criminal conspiracy' in the final report, without
material suggesting an agreement or participation of the accused in the
alleged design, cannot furnish a sufficient basis for proceeding against him.
31. In the present case, the allegation that the petitioner was keeping
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/6/2026
4:55:01 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34174
15 MCRC-39754-2026
information regarding the movements of the prosecutrix and was supplying

the same to the main accused has not been supported by any particular
instance of communication or other material demonstrating an agreement or
meeting of minds between the petitioner and the main accused. The call
detail records placed before this Court also do not disclose any
communication between them during the relevant period. Though the
absence of telephonic communication alone cannot conclusively rule out a
conspiracy, the same assumes significance when considered along with the
absence of any specific allegation or independent material showing the
petitioner's participation in the alleged criminal design.
32. This Court is conscious of the settled principle that while
exercising inherent jurisdiction, it cannot conduct a mini-trial or undertake a
meticulous appreciation of the evidence. However, examining whether the
allegations and the material collected during investigation disclose the basic
ingredients of the offences alleged against an individual accused is entirely
different from conducting a trial. In the present case, the interference sought
is not founded upon an assessment of the comparative credibility of the
witnesses or the probability of their eventual testimony, but upon the
fundamental absence of any specific material connecting the petitioner with
the alleged offences.
33. The principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction for
quashing criminal proceedings have been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others (supra). The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has indicated that where the allegations made in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/6/2026
4:55:01 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34174
16 MCRC-39754-2026
FIR or the material collected during investigation do not disclose the

commission of any offence against the accused, or where the continuation of
proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law, the inherent
jurisdiction of the High Court may be exercised.
34. Similarly, in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab , AIR 1960 SC 866, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court recognised the circumstances in which criminal
proceedings may be quashed where the allegations and the material available
do not furnish a legal basis for proceeding against the accused.
35. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case,
this Court finds that the prosecution material, even if accepted in its entirety,
does not disclose any specific and substantiated act on the part of the
petitioner which would establish his participation in the alleged offences.
The mere reference to his name in the statement under Section 183 of the
BNSS, without any particularized allegation or supporting material
demonstrating his involvement in the alleged conspiracy, cannot by itself
sustain the criminal prosecution against him. The inherent power of this
Court is not being exercised on the ground that the prosecution evidence is
insufficient to secure a conviction after trial. Rather, the interference is
warranted because the very foundation for prosecuting the present petitioner
is lacking in the material collected during investigation. Requiring the
petitioner to undergo a criminal trial in the absence of any specific material
connecting him with the alleged offences would result in an unjustified
continuation of criminal proceedings.
36. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/6/2026
4:55:01 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34174
17 MCRC-39754-2026
opinion that the allegations against the present petitioner are general in

nature and are not supported by any specific or independent material
demonstrating his participation in the alleged criminal acts. The FIR does
not name the petitioner. The statements of the eyewitnesses and the mother
of the prosecutrix do not attribute any overt act to him. The prosecutrix, in
her detailed narration of the incident and the subsequent events, has not
attributed to the petitioner any specific role in the alleged abduction, the
subsequent journey or the events which took place thereafter. Even in her
statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, though the petitioner has been
referred to in connection with the alleged keeping of information about her
movements, no particular instance of communication, assistance or
participation has been disclosed against him.
37. Further, the call detail records placed before this Court do not
establish any communication between the petitioner and the main accused
during the relevant period, and no other independent material has been
demonstrated to substantiate the allegation that the petitioner was supplying
information to the main accused or was acting in furtherance of any alleged
criminal conspiracy.
38. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the
prosecution has failed to demonstrate any legally sustainable factual
foundation for proceeding against the present petitioner. The continuation of
criminal proceedings against him, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the present case, would amount to an abuse of the process of law and would
not advance the cause of justice.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/6/2026
4:55:01 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34174
18 MCRC-39754-2026
39. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The FIR registered at Police

Station Kampoo, District Gwalior, in connection with Crime No.110/2026,
for offences punishable under Sections 140(3), 87, 126(2) and 61(2) of the
BNS and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, and all consequential criminal
proceedings arising therefrom, including the charge-sheet dated 22.07.2026
and the proceedings pending before the competent Court, are hereby quashed
qua the present petitioner, Kunal Singh Yadav only.
40. It is made clear that this order shall have no bearing upon the
prosecution of the main accused or the other co-accused persons. The
competent Court shall proceed with the trial against the remaining accused
persons independently, in accordance with law and without being influenced
by any observation made herein.
41. The petition stands allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
Vishal

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 11/6/2026
4:55:01 PM