Jagannath Baghel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68553
1 MCRC-2635-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 2635 of 2025
JAGANNATH BAGHEL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Ram Tamrakar - Senior Advocate with Shri Ghanshyam Barman - Advocate
for the petitioner.
Shri Atmaram Bain - Dy.G.A. for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Alok Vagrecha with Shri Vishal Baghel - Advocates for the respondent No.2 & 3.

Reserved on 14.07.2026
Pronounced on 08.09.2026
.....................................................................................................................................
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of B.N.S.S.
for quashing of F.I.R. and consequential criminal proceedings relating to Crime
No.505/2024 registered at P.S. Kotwali Balaghat, District Balaghat (M.P.) for the
offences under Section 103(1), 80, 232(1), 3(5) of B.N.S.
2. Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner No.1 is the father-in-law of
deceased and petitioner No.2 & 3 are the brother-in-law of deceased. They
alongwith husband of deceased/accused Vishal harassed and tortured the deceased
for demand of dowry and for compromise in earlier cases registered against them,
therefore quarrel took place between the deceased and her husband Vishal due to
which deceased died on 04.11.2024. During investigation it was found that the
murder of deceased was committed by strangulation by petitioners. Therefore, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHAMMED
MOHSIN QURESHI
Signing time: 08-09-2026
17:17:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68553
2 MCRC-2635-2025
Police registered FIR against the petitioners at Crime No.505/2024 registered at

P.S. Kotwali Balaghat, District Balaghat (M.P.) for the offences under Section
103(1), 80, 232(1), 3(5) of B.N.S. After investigation, police filed charge-sheet
before the Competent Court whereupon the case was registered as R.C.T.
No.1295/2024 and is presently pending before the concerned Trial Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are
innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The marriage
between the deceased, Upasna, and her husband, Vishal Baghel, was solemnized
on 29.05.2021 at District Seoni, and out of the said wedlock, a child was born on
05.08.2022. The deceased died on 04.11.2024 at Balaghat. It is submitted that
petitioner No.1, Jagannath Baghel, the father-in-law of the deceased, was serving
and residing at Seoni and had retired from service. In support of the said
submission, learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the pension
order dated 05.12.2023 issued by the competent authority (Annexure P/2). It is
further submitted that petitioner No.2, Deepak Baghel, the brother-in-law of the
deceased, was employed as a Driver in the TFRI Department at Jabalpur and was
residing there. In support of the said contention, reliance has been placed on
Annexure P/3 relating to his posting and Annexure P/4 relating to the allotment of
Government accommodation. It is further submitted that petitioner No.3, Vikram
Baghel, has been serving as a Constable in the C.I.S.F. since 2010 and was posted
at Bhilai, where he was residing. In support of the said submission, learned
counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the certificate issued by the
competent authority of C.I.S.F., Bhilai (Annexure P/5). Learned counsel further
submitted that the deceased had earlier lodged an FIR on 08.09.2023, which was
registered as Crime No.46/2023 at Police Station Seoni, District Seoni, for the
offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 294, 506 & 34 of the IPC and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHAMMED
MOHSIN QURESHI
Signing time: 08-09-2026
17:17:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68553
3 MCRC-2635-2025
Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is further submitted that on the

date of the incident, i.e., 04.11.2024, petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 3 were residing at
their respective places, namely Seoni, Jabalpur and Bhilai, and were not present at
the place of occurrence. Learned counsel further submitted that the FIR in the
present case was registered on 04.11.2024 on the basis of the statements of the
deceased's brothers, Aditya and Anand. Aditya had received information
regarding the incident from his sister, Prachi Baghel, whose statement was also
recorded during the investigation. According to her statement, she had spoken to
the deceased shortly before the incident, and in that conversation, the presence of
only the deceased's husband, Vishal, was mentioned. No reference was made to
the presence of the present petitioners. In support of the said contention, learned
counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the statements of the
neighbours of the deceased, namely Madhuri Sanodia and Sandhya, who have
stated that only the husband of the deceased, Vishal, was present at the time of the
incident and that the present petitioners were not present there. It is further
submitted that the petitioners had no role in the alleged murder of the deceased
and that the allegations, if any, are solely against her husband, Vishal. However,
the petitioners have also been falsely implicated in the case. It is lastly submitted
that the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of
the IPC are not made out against the petitioners, as there is no material on record
to show that they had made any demand for dowry or had subjected the deceased
to cruelty in connection with such demand soon before her death. Learned counsel
has placed reliance on the decisions of Apex Court in (2009) 10 SCC 184 (Neelu
Chopra & Anr. vs. Bharti), (2010) 7 SCC 667 (Preeti Gupta vs. State of
Jharkhand), (2012) 10 SCC 741 (Geeta Mehrotra vs. State of U.P.), (2014) 3 SCC
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHAMMED
MOHSIN QURESHI
Signing time: 08-09-2026
17:17:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68553
4 MCRC-2635-2025
567 (Swapnil vs. State of M.P.), (2022) 6 SCC 599 (Kahkashan Kaushar @

Sonam vs. State of Bihar), (2025) 3 SCC 756 (Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana)
& 2024 INSC 953 (Dara Lakshmi Narayana vs. State of Telangana), decision of
Delhi High Court in 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7006 (Satbir Dalai vs. State (Govt. of
NCT of Delhi) and decision of Coordinate Bench of this Court in Dushyant Singh
Bundela & Anr. vs. State of M.P. passed in MCRC. No.35937/2020. Therefore, it
is prayed for quashing the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings arising
from the said aforesaid crime number.
4 . On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently
opposed the prayer made by the petitioners and submitted that the petitioners were
also harassing the deceased from very beginning. They were also instigating the
husband of deceased for torturing the deceased. It is further submitted that earlier
the husband of deceased, Vishal Baghel alongwith other accused Satish, Om and
another person have assaulted the father of deceased with a sword and in that
regard, F.I.R. was registered at Crime No.720/2023 at P.S. Seoni, District Seoni
on 03.08.2023. Thereafter, on 30.08.2023, the husband of deceased Vishal caused
gunshot injury to the deceased and her aunt Sulochna, therefore F.I.R. was
registered at Crime No.802/2023 at P.S. Seoni, District Seoni on 31.08.2023. It is
further submitted that the petitioners were continuously harassing the deceased
alongwith her husband Vishal. It is further submitted that subsequent death of the
deceased on 03.11.2024 cannot be viewed in isolation, but forms part of a
continuing sequence of events, which requires full adjudication at the stage of
trial. It is further submitted that in this case there is allegation of criminal
conspiracy to commit the alleged offence. It is further submitted that one day prior
to the incident, the deceased called her sister Prachi and informed that her
husband, father-in-law and brothers-in-law were threatening her to withdraw the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHAMMED
MOHSIN QURESHI
Signing time: 08-09-2026
17:17:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68553
5 MCRC-2635-2025
complaint filed by her under Section 498-A of IPC and they were demanding

dowry. They also threatened that in case she failed to comply their demand, they
would kill hr family members through her husband Vishal. This allegation is
direct, specific and relates to the immediate period preceding the death of the
deceased, which established that conduct of the petitioners was not remote or
incidental but formed part of a continuous pattern of harassment, coercion and
threats.
4.1 It is further submitted that for making an offence under Section 34 of
IPC/3/5 of B.N.S. physical presence of accused is not necessary. Even if the
accused is not present on the spot but he may also be liable to be made accused
under Section 34 of IPC/3/5 of B.N.S. The plea of alibi raised by the applicant
cannot be considered at this stage and the same is a matter of defence, which will
be established during the course of trial. Learned counsel has placed reliance on
the decision of Apex Court in (2010) 8 SCC 407 (Virendra Singh vs. State of
M.P.), (2021) 19 SCC 401 (Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of
Maharashtra), (2023) 7 SCC 161 (Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Aryan
Singh) and decision of High Court of Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh in Abdul
Qayoom Ganie vs. Union Territory of J&K passed in WP(C).
No.296/2025. Therefore, prayed for rejection of this instant petition.
5. Learned State counsel also opposed the prayer made by the petitioners
and submitted that earlier the deceased had lodged the F.I.R. against the
petitioners, which was registered as Crime No.46/2023 at P.S. Seoni, District
Seoni under Section 498-A, 406, 294, 506, 34 of IPC and Section 3 & 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act. It is further submitted that earlier three F.I.Rs. were registered
against the petitioners and other accused persons, which shows the intention of
petitioners for committing the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the other
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHAMMED
MOHSIN QURESHI
Signing time: 08-09-2026
17:17:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68553
6 MCRC-2635-2025
material collected during investigation also corroborates the prosecution case.

There is sufficient material available on record to prosecute the petitioners in the
present case. The plea of alibi raised by the applicant cannot be considered at this
stage and the same is a matter of defence, which will be established during the
course of trial. It is also submitted that upon completion of the investigation, the
charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. Therefore, prayed
for rejection of this instant petition.
6. Heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the
material available on record.
7. The principles of exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
were laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Supriya Jain v. State of
Haryana, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 765 : (2023) 7 SCC 711 wherein it was observed
at page 716:-
"17. The principles to be borne in mind with regard to the quashing of a
charge/proceedings either in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section
397CrPC or Section 482 CrPC or together, as the case may be, has
engaged the attention of this Court many a time. Reference to each and
every precedent is unnecessary. However, we may profitably refer to
only one decision of this Court where upon a survey of almost all the
precedents on the point, the principles have been summarised by this
Court succinctly. In Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC
460 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 687 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986], this Court
laid down the following guiding principles : (SCC pp. 482-84, para
27)“
27. …27.1. Though there are no limits to the powers of
the Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more
the power, the more due care and caution is to be
exercised in invoking these powers. The power of
quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge
framed in terms of Section 228 of the Code should be
exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and
that too in the rarest of rare cases.
27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the
uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of
the case and the documents submitted therewith prima
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHAMMED
MOHSIN QURESHI
Signing time: 08-09-2026
17:17:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68553
7 MCRC-2635-2025
facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so
patently absurd and inherently improbable that no
prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and
where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not
satisfied then the Court may interfere.

27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No
meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for
considering whether the case would end in conviction or
not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of
charge.
27.4. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely
essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for
correcting some grave error that might be committed by
the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High
Court should be loath to interfere, at the threshold, to
throttle the prosecution in the exercise of its inherent
powers.
27.5. Where there is an express legal bar enacted in any
of the provisions of the Code or any specific law in force
to the very initiation or institution and continuance of
such criminal proceedings, such a bar is intended to
provide specific protection to an accused.
27.6. The Court has a duty to balance the freedom of a
person and the right of the complainant or prosecution to
investigate and prosecute the offender.
27.7. The process of the court cannot be permitted to be
used for an oblique or ultimate/ulterior purpose.
27.8. Where the allegations made and as they appeared
from the record and documents annexed therewith to
predominantly give rise to and constitute a “civil wrong”
with no “element of criminality” and does not satisfy the
basic ingredients of a criminal offence, the court may be
justified in quashing the charge. Even in such cases, the
court would not embark upon the critical analysis of the
evidence.
27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts
have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHAMMED
MOHSIN QURESHI
Signing time: 08-09-2026
17:17:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68553
8 MCRC-2635-2025
evidence and materials on record to determine whether
there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case
would end in a conviction; the court is concerned
primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether
they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of
the process of court leading to injustice.

27.10. It is neither necessary nor is the court called upon
to hold a full-fledged enquiry or to appreciate evidence
collected by the investigating agencies to find out
whether it is a case of acquittal or conviction.
27.11. Where allegations give rise to a civil claim and
also amount to an offence, merely because a civil claim
is maintainable, does not mean that a criminal complaint
cannot be maintained.
27.12. In the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section
228 and/or under Section 482, the Court cannot take into
consideration external materials given by an accused for
reaching the conclusion that no offence was disclosed or
that there was the possibility of his acquittal. The Court
has to consider the record and documents annexed
therewith by the prosecution.
27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule
of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even
broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to
permit a continuation of prosecution rather than its
quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected
to marshal the records with a view to deciding the
admissibility and reliability of the documents or records
but is an opinion formed prima facie.
27.14. Where the charge sheet, reported under Section
173(2) of the Code, suffers from fundamental legal
defects, the Court may be well within its jurisdiction to
frame a charge.
27.15. Coupled with any or all of the above, where the
Court finds that it would amount to an abuse of process
of the Code or that the interest of justice favours,
otherwise it may quash the charge. The power is to be
exercised ex debito justitiae i.e. to do real and substantial
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHAMMED
MOHSIN QURESHI
Signing time: 08-09-2026
17:17:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68553
9 MCRC-2635-2025
justice for administration of which alone, the courts
exist.

27.16. These are the principles which individually and
preferably cumulatively (one or more) be taken into
consideration as precepts to exercise extraordinary and
wide plenitude and jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Code by the High Court. Where the factual foundation
for an offence has been laid down, the courts should be
reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings
even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not
been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is
substantial compliance with the requirements of the
offence."
8. Similar is the judgment in Gulam Mustafa v. State of Karnataka, 2023
SCC OnLine SC 603 wherein it was observed:-
26. Although we are not for verbosity in our judgments, a slightly
detailed survey of the judicial precedents is in order. In State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, this Court held:
"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 give 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHAMMED
MOHSIN QURESHI
Signing time: 08-09-2026
17:17:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68553
10 MCRC-2635-2025
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
by police officers 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 noncognizable
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.
103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the
power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be
exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and
that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not
be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the
reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations
made in the FIR or the complaint and that the
extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHAMMED
MOHSIN QURESHI
Signing time: 08-09-2026
17:17:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68553
11 MCRC-2635-2025
arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its

whim or caprice.”
9. It was laid down in CBI v. Aryan Singh, 2023 SCC, OnLine SC 379 , that
the High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial while exercising jurisdiction under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The allegations are required to be proved during the trial
by leading evidence. It was observed:
"6. From the impugned common judgment and order passed by the
High Court, it appears that the High Court has dealt with the
proceedings before it, as if, the High Court was conducting a mini-trial
and/or the High Court was considering the applications against the
judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court on conclusion of
trial. As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge
and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the
powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court is not required to conduct
the mini-trial. The High Court in the common impugned judgment and
order has observed that the charges against the accused are not proved.
This is not the stage where the prosecution/investigating agency is/are
required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved
during the trial based on the evidence led by the
prosecution/investigating agency.
7. Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in going into detail in
the allegations and the material collected during the course of the
investigation against the accused, at this stage. At the stage of
discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.
P.C., the Court has very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider
“whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against
the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not.
8. One other reason pointed out by the High Court is that the initiation
of the criminal proceedings/proceedings is malicious. At this stage, it
is required to be noted that the investigation was handed over to the
CBI pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court. That
thereafter, on conclusion of the investigation, the accused persons have
been charge-sheeted. Therefore, the High Court has erred in observing
at this stage that the initiation of the criminal proceedings/proceedings
is malicious. Whether the criminal proceedings was/were malicious or
not, is not required to be considered at this stage. The same is required
to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. In any case, at this stage,
what is required to be considered is a prima facie case and the material
collected during the course of the investigation, which warranted the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHAMMED
MOHSIN QURESHI
Signing time: 08-09-2026
17:17:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68553
12 MCRC-2635-2025
accused to be tried."

10. This position was reiterated in Abhishek v. State of M.P. 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1083 wherein it was observed:
"15. The contours of the power to quash criminal proceedings under
Section 482 Cr. P.C. are well defined. In V. Ravi Kumar v. State
represented by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Salem,
Tamil Nadu [(2019) 14 SCC 568], this Court affirmed that where an
accused seeks quashing of the FIR, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of
the High Court, it is wholly impermissible for the High Court to enter
into the factual arena to adjudge the correctness of the allegations in the
complaint. In Neeharika Infrastructure (P). Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra
[Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021, decided on 13.04.2021], a 3-Judge
Bench of this Court elaborately considered the scope and extent of the
power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. It was observed that the power of
quashing should be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the
rarest of rare cases, such standard not being confused with the norm
formulated in the context of the death penalty. It was further observed
that while examining the FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought,
the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or
genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made therein, but if the
Court thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the
self-restraint imposed by law, and more particularly, the parameters
laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC
866) and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335],
the Court would have jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint.
11. It is apparent from these judgments that power under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent the abuse of process or secure the ends of
justice. The Court can quash the F.I.R. if the allegations do not constitute an
offence or make out a case against the accused. However, it is not permissible for
it to conduct a mini-trial to arrive at such findings.
12. The Madras High Court also held in Ganga Bai v. Shriram, 1990 SCC
OnLine MP 213 that the fresh evidence is not permissible or desirable in
the proceeding under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It was observed:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHAMMED
MOHSIN QURESHI
Signing time: 08-09-2026
17:17:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68553
13 MCRC-2635-2025
“Proceedings under Section 482, Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed to be
converted into a full-dressed trial. Shri Maheshwari filed a photostate
copy of an order dated 28.7.1983, passed in Criminal Case No. 1005 of
1977, to which the present petitioner was not a party. Fresh evidence at
this stage is neither permissible nor desirable. The respondent by filing
this document is virtually introducing additional evidence, which is not
the object of Section 482, Cr.P.C.”

13. The Andhra Pradesh High Court also took a similar view in Bharat Metal
Box Company Limited, Hyderabad and Others vs. G. K. Strips Private Limited
and another, 2004 STPL 43 AP, and held:
“9. This Court can only look into the complaint and the documents
filed along with it and the sworn statements of the witnesses if any
recorded. While judging the correctness of the proceedings, it cannot
look into the documents, which are not filed before the lower Court.
Section 482 Cr.PC debars the Court to look into fresh documents, in
view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of
Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa and another, 2002 (1) Supreme 192. The
relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:
"The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on
consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement made
on oath of the complainant that the ingredients of the offence or
offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the
complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there
would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When
information is lodged at the Police Station and an offence is
registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of
secondary importance. It is the material collected during the
investigation and evidence led in Court, which decides the fate of
the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the
informant are of no consequence and cannot by itself be the basis
for quashing the proceedings".
14. A similar view was taken in Mahendra K.C. v. State of Karnataka, (2022)
2 SCC 129: (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 401 wherein it was observed at page 142:
“16. … the test to be applied is whether the allegations in the complaint
as they stand, without adding or detracting from the complaint, prima
facie establish the ingredients of the offence alleged. At this stage, the
High Court cannot test the veracity of the allegations nor for that matter
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHAMMED
MOHSIN QURESHI
Signing time: 08-09-2026
17:17:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68553
14 MCRC-2635-2025
can it proceed in the manner that a judge conducting a trial would, on
the basis of the evidence collected during the course of the trial.”

15. This position was reiterated in Supriya Jain v. State of Haryana, (2023) 7
SCC 711: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 765 wherein it was held:
"13. All these documents which the petitioner seeks to rely on, if
genuine, could be helpful for her defence at the trial but the same are
not material at the stage of deciding whether quashing as prayed for by
her before the High Court was warranted or not. We, therefore, see no
reason to place any reliance on these three documents."
16. A similar view was taken in Iveco Magirus Brandschutztechnik GMBH
v. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1258, wherein it was
observed:
"Adverting to the aspect of the exercise of jurisdiction by the High
Courts under section 482, Cr. P.C., in a case where the offence of
defamation is claimed by the accused to have not been committed
based on any of the Exceptions and a prayer for quashing, is made, the
law seems to be well settled that the High Courts can go no further and
enlarge the scope of inquiry if the accused seeks to rely on materials
which were not there before the Magistrate. This is based on the simple
proposition that what the Magistrate could not do, the High Courts may
not do. We may not be understood to undermine the High Courts'
powers saved by section 482, Cr. P.C.; such powers are always
available to be exercised ex debito justitiae, i.e., to do real and
substantial justice for the administration of which alone the High
Courts exist. However, the tests laid down for quashing an F.I.R. or
criminal proceedings arising from a police report by the High Courts in
the exercise of jurisdiction under section 482, Cr. P.C. not being
substantially different from the tests laid down for quashing of a
process issued under section 204 read with section 200, the High
Courts on recording due satisfaction are empowered to interfere if on a
reading of the complaint, the substance of statements on oath of the
complainant and the witness, if any, and documentary evidence as
produced, no offence is made out and that proceedings, if allowed to
continue, would amount to an abuse of the legal process. This too,
would be impermissible if the justice of a given case does not
overwhelmingly so demand.” (Emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHAMMED
MOHSIN QURESHI
Signing time: 08-09-2026
17:17:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68553
15 MCRC-2635-2025
17. Therefore, it is not permissible to look into the material filed by the

petitioner with the petition and the Court has to rely upon the FIR and the report
submitted by the police.
18. It was submitted that the contents of the FIR are false and the same
should be quashed. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of
Maharashtra v. Maroti, (2023) 4 SCC 298: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1503 that the
High Court exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot examine the
truthfulness, sufficiency and admissibility of the evidence. It was observed:
"21. If FIR and the materials collected disclose a cognizable
offence and the final report filed under Section 173(2)CrPC on
completion of investigation based on it would reveal that the
ingredients to constitute an offence under the POCSO Act and a
prima facie case against the persons named therein as accused, the
truthfulness, sufficiency or admissibility of the evidence are not
matters falling within the purview of exercise of power under
Section 482CrPC and undoubtedly they are matters to be done by
the trial court at the time of trial. This position is evident from the
decisions referred to supra.
22. In the decision in M.L. Bhatt v. M.K. Pandita [M.L. Bhatt v.
M.K. Pandita, (2023) 12 SCC 821: 2002 SCC OnLine SC 1300: JT
(2002) 3 SC 89], this Court held that while considering the
question of quashing of FIR the High Court would not be entitled
to appreciate by way of sifting the materials collected in course of
investigation including the statements recorded under Section
161CrPC.
23. In the decision in Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab [Rajeev Kourav
v. Baisahab, (2020) 3 SCC 317 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 51], a two-
judge Bench of this Court dealt with the question as to the matters
that could be considered by the High Court in quashment
proceedings under Section 482CrPC. It was held therein that
statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161CrPC being
wholly inadmissible in evidence could not be taken into
consideration by the Court while adjudicating a petition filed under
Section 482CrPC. In that case, this Court took note of the fact that
the High Court was aware that one of the witnesses mentioned that
the deceased victim had informed him about the harassment by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHAMMED
MOHSIN QURESHI
Signing time: 08-09-2026
17:17:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68553
16 MCRC-2635-2025
accused, which she was not able to bear and hence wanted to
commit suicide. Finding that the conclusion of the High Court to
quash the criminal proceedings, in that case, was on the basis of its
assessment of the statements recorded under Section 161CrPC, it
was held that statements thereunder, being wholly inadmissible in
evidence could not have been taken into consideration by the Court
while adjudicating a petition filed under Section 482CrPC. It was
also held that the High Court committed an error in quashing the
proceedings by assessing the statements recorded under Section
161CrPC.

19. Similar is the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manik B. Vs.
Kadapala Sreyes Reddy and another 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 642, wherein it was
observed:
"6. Whether the testimony of the witnesses is trustworthy or not
has to be found out from the examination-in-chief and cross-
examination of the witnesses when they stand in the box at the
stage of such trial.
7. Such an exercise, in our considered view, is not permissible
while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
8. The scope of interference, while quashing the proceedings under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. and that too for a serious offence like Section
302 of the Indian Penal Code is very limited. The Court would
exercise its power to quash the proceedings only if it finds that
taking the case at its face value, no case is made out at all.
9. At the stage of deciding an application under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. it is not permissible for the High Court to go into the
correctness or otherwise of the material placed by the prosecution
in the charge sheet. The High Court by the impugned order has
done exactly the same.”
20. In the present case, it cannot be said that the prosecution case against
the petitioners is based solely on the fact that they are being relatives of the
deceased’s husband Vishal. The prosecution has relied upon previous criminal
proceeding relating to alleged demand of dowry, harassment and assault and more
importantly upon the statement that soon before the death, the deceased had
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHAMMED
MOHSIN QURESHI
Signing time: 08-09-2026
17:17:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68553
17 MCRC-2635-2025
informed her sister Prachi on 03.11.2024 that petitioners were pressurizing her to

compromise or withdrawal of pending cases earlier instituted by her.
21. So far the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that they were
not present at the place of occurrence, which may be relevant at the stage of
defence but cannot itself justify the quashing of prosecution case at this stage.
There is allegation that soon before the occurrence, the deceased Upasna Baghel
disclosed her sister Prachi on phone that the petitioners were pressurizing her to
compromise or withdrawal of pending case, is a circumstance, which cannot be
discarded at the threshold. This fact has been mentioned in the F.I.R. also. The
petitioners have contended that they are residing at different place.This contention
essentially constitutes plea of alibi. The plea of alibi is a question of fact and
ordinarily requires evidence. The burden of establishing such defence rests
upon the accused at the appropriate stage of trial. It is also significant that the
deceased died within four years of her marriage. The charge-sheet contains
allegations under Section 80 of the B.N.S. relating to dowry death, as well as
under Section 103(1) read with Section 3(5) of the B.N.S. Whether the
ingredients of the said offences, including the requisite proximity of dowry
relates cruelty or harassment with the death of the deceased, are ultimately
established is a matter which has to be determined on the evidence led before
the Trial Court. The earlier criminal case lodged by the deceased regarding
demand of dowry and harassment, followed by the alleged assault by her
husband upon her father and brother, also warrants due consideration against
the accused persons. There is also an allegation that the accused persons
pressurized the deceased to withdraw the earlier case. The evidentiary value
and impact of these allegations will have to be assessed by the Trial Court
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHAMMED
MOHSIN QURESHI
Signing time: 08-09-2026
17:17:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68553
18 MCRC-2635-2025
after recording the evidence.

22. It is therefore not a case where even if prosecution material is accepted at
the face value, no offence whatsoever is disclosed against petitioners rather
prosecution material rejects factual questions concerning their alleged
participation and common intention, which cannot be properly adjudicated under
Section 528 of B.N.S.S.
23. So far the decisions cited by the petitioner are of no help to the petitioners
because in this case the deceased has earlier lodged a criminal case against the
petitioners and immediately before the occurrence, the deceased has talked with
her sister Prachi that her husband and petitioners were threatening her to withdraw
the complaint filed by her under Section 498-A of IPC and they were demanding
dowry. They also threatened that in case she failed to comply their demand, they
would kill hr family members through her husband Vishal.
24. Under these circumstances of present case, there cannot be any
quashment of FIR and criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The grounds
which are being raised are all matter of evidence that is to be establish before the
trial Court. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that allegations made are
false or baseless. The defence cannot be looked into by this Court at the initial
stage of criminal proceedings. It is settled position of law that under Section 482
of Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot embark upon appreciation of evidence and
cannot undertake a detailed examination of the facts contained in the FIRs by
acting as an appellate Court and draw its own conclusion. Under these
circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that no case is made out
warranting interference under the inherent powers.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHAMMED
MOHSIN QURESHI
Signing time: 08-09-2026
17:17:52

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68553
19 MCRC-2635-2025
25. It is made clear that any observations made herein are only for the

purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not be construed as an
expression on the merits of the case. The learned Trial Court shall proceed with
the matter uninfluenced by any observations made by this Court and shall decide
the case strictly in accordance with law.
26. The petition sans merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
JUDGE
mohsin

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHAMMED
MOHSIN QURESHI
Signing time: 08-09-2026
17:17:52