Arun Kumar Tomar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50144
1 MCRC-32131-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
th
ON THE 9 OF JULY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 32131 of 2026
ARUN KUMAR TOMAR
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Anuj Agarwal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Smt. Priyanka Mishra - Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the applicant under Section 528
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), invoking the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court for quashment of the criminal proceedings pending
against him in Sessions Trial No. 32 of 2019, arising out of Crime No. 155
of 2010, registered at Police Station Shahnagar, District Panna, for offences
punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal
Code. The present petition is the second petition seeking quashment of the
proceedings. The earlier petition preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. came to
be dismissed by this Court by order dated 08.01.2019 on the ground that the
material collected during investigation and incorporated in the charge-sheet
disclosed a prima facie case warranting trial. According to the applicant,
however, the present petition is founded upon an entirely distinct and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 14-07-2026
16:47:08

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50144
2 MCRC-32131-2026
subsequent cause of action, namely, the evidence which has come on record

during the course of trial. It is urged that after examination of as many as
thirty-eight prosecution witnesses, including all the alleged sellers of the
disputed lands as well as the Investigating Officer and the complainant, the
prosecution evidence itself completely exonerates the applicant and
demonstrates that he had no role whatsoever in the alleged transactions. On
this basis, it is contended that continuance of the criminal proceedings would
amount to abuse of the process of Court and would warrant exercise of the
inherent powers of this Court notwithstanding dismissal of the earlier
petition.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that an FIR bearing Crime No.155 of
2010 was registered at Police Station Shahnagar, District Panna, on the
complaint lodged by Shri S.L. Prajapati, the then Sub-Divisional Officer
(Revenue), alleging that certain parcels of Government land situated at
Village Beejakheda, which had been allotted to landless persons belonging
to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities, had been illegally
transferred by forty-four allottees in favour of D.S. Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. in
contravention of the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code.
Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet dated 27.12.2010 was filed
against the present applicant along with the then Nayab Tehsildar, the
concerned Patwari and other accused persons alleging commission of
offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC.
3. The applicant asserts that he was merely an employee of D.S. Green
Agri Estates Pvt. Ltd., a sister concern of D.S. Agro Private Limited, and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 14-07-2026
16:47:08

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50144
3 MCRC-32131-2026
was posted as Farm Manager for supervising agricultural operations in

Seoni, Katni, Panna and adjoining districts. According to him, the Company
was engaged in plantation activities, development of agricultural land and
allied agricultural operations. The task of identifying lands, negotiating with
landowners and executing sale transactions was allegedly undertaken through
one broker, Shri Ramesh Shukla, and the Company's authorised Power of
Attorney holder, Shri Prem Singh Chauhan. The Applicant contends that he
neither participated in negotiations nor executed any sale deed, was not a
signatory to any transaction and was never responsible for the day-to-day
management of the Company's business relating to purchase of lands.
4 . It is not in dispute that the applicant had earlier approached this Court
by filing M.Cr.C. No.4452 of 2011 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking
quashment of the proceedings, which came to be dismissed on 08.01.2019
after this Court found that the allegations contained in the charge-sheet
disclosed a prima facie case. Thereafter, the Trial Court rejected the
applicant's application for discharge and framed charges against him on
25.03.2019. Challenge to the said order also did not succeed. During
pendency of the trial, however, the prosecution examined thirty-eight
witnesses including all the landowners who allegedly executed the sale deeds
in favour of the Company and the Investigating Officer.
5 . The applicant has now approached this Court contending that the
evidence adduced by the prosecution itself has completely demolished the
prosecution case insofar as he is concerned.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the present
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 14-07-2026
16:47:08

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50144
4 MCRC-32131-2026
petition is maintainable notwithstanding dismissal of the earlier petition

under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as it is founded upon a wholly subsequent and
independent cause of action. It is argued that while deciding the earlier
petition this Court had only examined the allegations contained in the FIR
and the material collected during investigation for the limited purpose of
determining whether a prima facie case existed. The evidence recorded
during trial was naturally not available at that stage. Therefore, according to
the applicant, the present petition cannot be treated as a review or
reconsideration of the earlier order but is based upon subsequent
developments which fundamentally alter the factual matrix. It is further
submitted that all the landowners examined by the prosecution have
categorically deposed that the applicant had absolutely no role in negotiating
or executing the sale deeds in question and that they had never dealt with
him at any stage of the transactions. It is argued that these witnesses
constitute the very persons alleged to have been cheated or whose lands form
the subject matter of the prosecution. According to learned counsel, when
the prosecution's own witnesses have uniformly exonerated the applicant,
there remains no legally admissible evidence connecting him with the
alleged offences. It is also contended that even the Investigating Officer as
well complainant (the then SDO), while entering the witness box, admitted
that no material was discovered during investigation connecting the applicant
with execution of the impugned sale deeds and further admitted that the
applicant was not a signatory to any of the sale deeds. Learned counsel
submits that such admissions by the Investigating Officer as well as
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 14-07-2026
16:47:08

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50144
5 MCRC-32131-2026
complainant strike at the very root of the prosecution case against the

applicant.
7 . Learned counsel further argues that criminal liability is personal in
nature and cannot be fastened merely because the applicant happened to be
employed by a Company which ultimately purchased the lands. It is
submitted that the responsibility for identification, negotiation and execution
of sale transactions exclusively rested with the Company's authorised
representative holding the Power of Attorney, whereas the applicant was
merely a Farm Manager and an agricultural scientist whose duties were
confined to supervision of agricultural operations. In absence of any overt
act or specific allegation against him either in the charge-sheet or in the
evidence recorded during trial, continuation of the prosecution is stated to be
wholly unjustified. Placing reliance upon the scope of inherent powers under
Section 528 BNSS/Section 482 Cr.P.C., learned counsel submits that where
the prosecution evidence itself demonstrates that no offence is made out
against an accused, the High Court is empowered to exercise its inherent
jurisdiction even during the pendency of trial in order to prevent abuse of the
process of Court and to secure the ends of justice. According to him,
compelling the Applicant to undergo the remainder of a protracted trial
despite complete absence of incriminating evidence would amount to
unnecessary harassment and miscarriage of justice.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State does
not dispute the factual position that a substantial number of prosecution
witnesses, including the landowners, have not supported the prosecution case
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 14-07-2026
16:47:08

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50144
6 MCRC-32131-2026
against the present applicant and that their depositions do not attribute any

specific role to him in execution of the impugned sale transactions. The State
also does not seriously controvert the submission that the witnesses
examined thus far have not implicated the applicant in the alleged conspiracy
or execution of the sale deeds. However, learned counsel for the State raises
a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present petition.
It is submitted that the applicant had earlier invoked the inherent jurisdiction
of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of the very same
criminal proceedings, and the said petition was dismissed by a reasoned
order after this Court found that the allegations and material collected during
investigation disclosed a prima facie case for proceeding against him.
According to the State, once the earlier petition seeking identical relief has
been rejected, a second petition under Section 528 BNSS/Section 482
Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of the same proceedings is not maintainable. It is
contended that the applicant cannot be permitted to repeatedly invoke the
inherent jurisdiction of this Court merely because some of the prosecution
witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, and the appropriate
course would be to allow the trial to proceed to its logical conclusion where
the Trial Court shall appreciate the evidence in accordance with law. The
learned Government Advocate, therefore, submits that on the ground of
maintainability alone, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
9. Heard the parties and perused the material available in the case file.
10. The preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the
respondent-State pertains to the maintainability of the present petition. It is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 14-07-2026
16:47:08

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50144
7 MCRC-32131-2026
contended that the applicant had earlier invoked the inherent jurisdiction of

this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking
quashment of the very same criminal proceedings and the said petition
having been dismissed by a reasoned order dated 08.01.2019, a second
petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C.) is not maintainable. The objection,
though attractive at first blush, cannot be accepted.
11. It is well settled that the bar against entertaining successive petitions
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not absolute. A subsequent petition would be
maintainable where it is founded upon changed circumstances, subsequent
events or material which was not available for consideration while deciding
the earlier petition. In such a situation, the subsequent petition is not in the
nature of a review of the earlier order but is founded upon a fresh cause of
action arising after the earlier adjudication. The aforesaid principle stands
authoritatively settled by the Supreme Court in Anil Khadkiwala v. State
(Government of NCT of Delhi) and Another, (2019) 17 SCC 294, wherein
the Supreme Court held that although successive petitions under Section 482
Cr.P.C. are ordinarily not maintainable, a second petition would be
maintainable if there has been a material change in circumstances or the
subsequent petition is founded upon grounds materially different from those
urged and considered in the earlier petition. The Court observed that where
subsequent developments materially alter the factual position, the High Court
is not denuded of its inherent jurisdiction merely because an earlier petition
had been dismissed. The relevant para is quoted hereinunder :
"8. In Mohan Singh [Supt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 14-07-2026
16:47:08

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50144
8 MCRC-32131-2026
Mohan Singh, (1975) 3 SCC 706 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 156 : AIR
1975 SC 1002], it was held that a successive application under
Section 482 CrPC under changed circumstances was maintainable
and the dismissal of the earlier application was no bar to the same,
observing : (SCC pp. 709-10, para 2)

“2. … Here, the situation is wholly different. The earlier
application which was rejected by the High Court was
an application under Section 561-A of the Criminal
Procedure Code to quash the proceeding and the High
Court rejected it on the ground that the evidence was yet
to be led and it was not desirable to interfere with the
proceeding at that stage. But, thereafter, the criminal
case dragged on for a period of about one-and-a-half
years without any progress at all and it was in these
circumstances that Respondents 1 and 2 were
constrained to make a fresh application to the High
Court under Section 561-A to quash the proceeding. It
is difficult to see how in these circumstances, it could
ever be contended that what the High Court was being
asked to do by making the subsequent application was
to review or revise the order made by it on the earlier
application. Section 561-A preserves the inherent power
of the High Court to make such orders as it deems fit to
prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure
the ends of justice and the High Court must, therefore,
exercise its inherent powers having regard to the
situation prevailing at the particular point of time when
its inherent jurisdiction is sought to be invoked. The
High Court was in the circumstances entitled to
entertain the subsequent application of Respondents 1
and 2 and consider whether on the facts and
circumstances then obtaining the continuance of the
proceeding against the respondents constituted an abuse
of the process of the Court or its quashing was
necessary to secure the ends of justice. The facts and
circumstances obtaining at the time of the subsequent
application of Respondents 1 and 2 were clearly
different from what they were at the time of the earlier
application of the first respondent because, despite the
rejection of the earlier application of the first
respondent, the prosecution had failed to make any
progress in the criminal case even though it was filed as
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 14-07-2026
16:47:08

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50144
9 MCRC-32131-2026
far back as 1965 and the criminal case rested where it
was for a period of over one-and-a-half years.”
9. In Harshendra Kumar D. v. Rebatilata Koley [Harshendra
Kumar D. v. Rebatilata Koley, (2011) 3 SCC 351 : (2011) 1 SCC
(Civ) 717 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 1139 : 2011 Cri LJ 1626] , this
Court held : (SCC p. 362, paras 26-27)

“26. Criminal prosecution is a serious matter; it affects
the liberty of a person. No greater damage can be done
to the reputation of a person than dragging him in a
criminal case. In our opinion, the High Court fell into
grave error in not taking into consideration the
uncontroverted documents relating to the appellant's
resignation from the post of Director of the Company.
Had these documents been considered by the High
Court, it would have been apparent that the appellant
has resigned much before the cheques were issued by
the Company.
27. As noticed above, the appellant resigned from the
post of Director on 2-3-2004. The dishonoured cheques
were issued by the Company on 30-4-2004 i.e. much
after the appellant had resigned from the post of
Director of the Company. The acceptance of the
appellant's resignation is duly reflected in the
Resolution dated 2-3-2004. Then in the prescribed form
(Form 32), the Company informed to the Registrar of
Companies on 4-3-2004 about the appellant's
resignation. It is not even the case of the complainants
that the dishonoured cheques were issued by the
appellant. These facts leave no manner of doubt that on
the date the offence was committed by the Company,
the appellant was not the Director; he had nothing to do
with the affairs of the Company. In this view of the
matter, if the criminal complaints are allowed to
proceed against the appellant, it would result in gross
injustice to the appellant and tantamount to an abuse of
process of the court.”
10.Atul Shukla [Atul Shukla v. State of M.P., (2019) 17 SCC 299]
is clearly distinguishable on its facts as the relief sought was for
review/recall/modify the earlier order [Surendra Singh v. State of
M.P., 2018 SCC OnLine MP 1425] of dismissal in the interest of
justice. Consequently, the earlier order of dismissal was recalled.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 14-07-2026
16:47:08

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50144
10 MCRC-32131-2026
It was in that circumstance, it was held that in view of Section 362
CrPC the earlier order passed dismissing the quashing application
could not have been recalled. The case is completely
distinguishable on its own facts."

11. The Company, of which the appellant was a Director, is a
party-respondent in the complaint. The interests of the
complainant are therefore adequately protected. In the entirety of
the facts and circumstances of the case, we are unable to hold that
the second application for quashing of the complaint was not
maintainable merely because of the dismissal of the earlier
application.
12. In the present case, the earlier petition preferred by the applicant was
decided on 08.01.2019, at a stage when the trial had not commenced. The
scope of consideration before this Court at that time was confined to
examining whether the allegations contained in the FIR and the material
collected during investigation disclosed a prima facie case for proceeding
against the applicant. Naturally, the evidence that has subsequently emerged
during trial was neither available nor could have been considered while
deciding the earlier petition. The present petition, however, is founded upon
an entirely different factual foundation. It is the specific case of the applicant
that after framing of charges, the prosecution has examined as many as
thirty-eight witnesses, including all the landowners who allegedly executed
the impugned sale deeds as well as the complainant and Investigating
Officer. According to the applicant, these witnesses have consistently
deposed that the applicant had no role whatsoever in the negotiation or
execution of the sale transactions and the Investigating Officer as well as
complainant have also admitted that no material was found connecting the
applicant with the execution of the sale deeds. Significantly, learned counsel
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 14-07-2026
16:47:08

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50144
11 MCRC-32131-2026
for the respondent-State has not disputed the factual position that the

prosecution witnesses examined till date have not supported the prosecution
case against the applicant.
13. Thus, the present petition is not an attempt to seek reconsideration of
the order dated 08.01.2019 on the same material. Rather, it is founded upon
subsequent evidence recorded during trial, which constitutes a material
change in circumstances and gives rise to a fresh cause of action. The basis
of the earlier petition and that of the present petition are materially distinct.
In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Anil Khadkiwala
(supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition
cannot be held to be barred merely because the applicant's earlier petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. had been dismissed. The subsequent developments
relied upon by the applicant are undoubtedly events which occurred after
disposal of the earlier petition and, therefore, furnish an independent basis
for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the
preliminary objection raised by the respondent-State regarding
maintainability of the present petition is rejected. The petition is held to be
maintainable and is liable to be examined on its own merits in the light of the
evidence that has subsequently come on record during the course of trial.
1 4 . The next question which arises for consideration is whether this
Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482
Cr.P.C.), can take into consideration the evidence that has already been
recorded before the Trial Court and whether such evidence can form the
basis for quashing the criminal proceedings.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 14-07-2026
16:47:08

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50144
12 MCRC-32131-2026
15. Ordinarily, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,

the High Court does not embark upon an appreciation of evidence or
adjudicate disputed questions of fact. The jurisdiction is intended to prevent
abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. However,
where subsequent events have transpired during the pendency of the trial and
the prosecution's own evidence unmistakably demonstrates that continuation
of the prosecution would be wholly futile, the High Court is not precluded
from taking note of such material while exercising its inherent jurisdiction.
The aforesaid principle has recently been reiterated by the Supreme Court in
Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 1947, wherein, after referring to the earlier decision in Rajiv
Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330, the Supreme Court
summarized the principles governing exercise of inherent jurisdiction where
the accused relies upon unimpeachable material. The Court held that before
quashing criminal proceedings, the High Court is required to satisfy itself of
the following four tests:
(i) Whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable
and indubitable, that is to say, whether it is of sterling and impeccable
quality;
(ii) Whether such material completely rules out the factual assertions
contained in the charges and is sufficient to reject the prosecution case on its
face;
(iii) Whether the material has remained unrefuted by the prosecution or is
of such a nature that it cannot justifiably be refuted; and
(iv) Whether permitting the criminal proceedings to continue would
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 14-07-2026
16:47:08

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50144
13 MCRC-32131-2026
amount to abuse of the process of the Court and would fail to serve the ends

of justice.
16. The Supreme Court further observed that where each of the aforesaid
requirements is satisfied, the High Court ought to exercise its inherent
jurisdiction to quash the proceedings, thereby preventing unnecessary
continuation of a trial which is incapable of resulting in a lawful conviction
and saving valuable judicial time. Examining the facts of the present case on
the touchstone of the aforesaid principles, this Court finds that all the four
requirements stand satisfied.
17. Firstly, the material relied upon by the Applicant is not in the nature of
a private document or a defence sought to be projected for the first time
before this Court. Rather, it consists of the depositions of thirty-eight
prosecution witnesses recorded before the Trial Court, including all the
alleged sellers of the disputed lands and the Investigating Officer and
complainant himself. Such evidence forms part of the judicial record and is
unquestionably of sterling, impeccable and unimpeachable character. There
can be no dispute with regard to the authenticity or admissibility of the said
material.
1 8 . Secondly, the prosecution evidence itself completely negates the
allegations levelled against the applicant. The landowners, who are the
principal witnesses regarding execution of the impugned sale deeds, have
consistently stated that the applicant neither negotiated the transactions nor
participated in the execution of the sale deeds and that they had no dealings
whatsoever with him. Equally significant is the testimony of the
Investigating Officer as well as complainant (the then SDO) who have
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 14-07-2026
16:47:08

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50144
14 MCRC-32131-2026
admitted that no material was found during investigation connecting the

applicant with the execution of the impugned sale deeds and that the
applicant was not a signatory to any of the transactions. Thus, the very
foundation of the prosecution case against the applicant stands demolished
by the prosecution's own evidence.
19. Thirdly, the aforesaid material remains substantially uncontroverted.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State has fairly not disputed
the factual position that the prosecution witnesses examined thus far have not
supported the prosecution case against the applicant. Since the material
emanates from the prosecution's own witnesses and forms part of the
evidence led by the prosecution itself, the same cannot now be legitimately
refuted or ignored.
20. Lastly, permitting the criminal proceedings to continue against the
applicant, despite the prosecution evidence having exonerated him, would
undoubtedly amount to abuse of the process of the Court. The object of a
criminal trial is to ascertain guilt on the basis of legally admissible evidence.
Once the prosecution evidence itself fails to disclose the essential ingredients
of the offences against a particular accused, compelling such accused to
undergo the remaining stages of the trial would serve no useful purpose.
Rather, it would result in unnecessary harassment to the accused and waste
precious judicial time, when the possibility of a lawful conviction is rendered
wholly illusory on the basis of the evidence already adduced.
21. This Court is conscious that while exercising jurisdiction under Section
528 BNSS/Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is not expected to undertake a meticulous
appreciation of evidence as would be done by the Trial Court at the stage of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 14-07-2026
16:47:08

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50144
15 MCRC-32131-2026
final judgment. The present exercise is not one of weighing the probative

value of rival evidence or deciding disputed questions of fact. Instead, the
Court has merely examined whether the prosecution's own evidence,
accepted at its face value, discloses any material capable of sustaining the
prosecution against the applicant. The answer, in the considered opinion of
this Court, is clearly in the negative.
2 2 . Accordingly, applying the four-fold test laid down by the Supreme
Court in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani (supra) and Rajiv Thapar (supra), this
Court is satisfied that the material already brought on record by the
prosecution is of impeccable quality, completely dislodges the allegations
against the applicant, remains unrefuted by the prosecution and unmistakably
demonstrates that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the
applicant would constitute an abuse of the process of the Court. The
evidence recorded during trial, therefore, can legitimately be taken into
consideration while exercising the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under
Section 528 BNSS/Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice.
23. Having bestowed anxious consideration to the rival submissions and
upon a careful examination of the material available on record, this Court is
of the considered opinion that the present case is one where continuance of
the criminal proceedings against the applicant would amount to a patent
abuse of the process of the Court and would not serve the ends of justice. As
noticed hereinabove, the prosecution has already examined thirty-eight
witnesses, including every landowner alleged to have executed the impugned
sale deeds, the complainant, and the Investigating Officer. Significantly,
none of these witnesses has attributed any role whatsoever to the present
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 14-07-2026
16:47:08

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50144
16 MCRC-32131-2026
applicant in the alleged commission of the offences. On the contrary, the

landowners have consistently deposed that the applicant neither negotiated
nor participated in the execution of the sale deeds and that they had never
dealt with him in relation to the transactions. Several of them have
categorically stated that they do not even know or identify the applicant.
Thus, the very witnesses upon whose testimony the prosecution sought to
establish the alleged illegal transactions have themselves completely ruled
out the involvement of the applicant.
2 4 . Equally significant is the testimony of the complainant and the
Investigating Officer. The complainant has not stated any fact indicating the
participation of the applicant in the alleged conspiracy or execution of the
sale transactions. The Investigating Officer has also admitted that no material
was found during investigation connecting the applicant with the execution
of the sale deeds and that the applicant was not a signatory to any of the
impugned documents. Thus, even the official witnesses relied upon by the
prosecution do not furnish any incriminating circumstance against the
Applicant. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the prosecution
evidence, which alone constitutes the foundation of the criminal case, has
already unfolded before the Trial Court to a substantial extent. The material
collected during investigation, read together with the evidence subsequently
adduced by the prosecution, does not disclose any overt act, participation,
conspiracy or fraudulent conduct attributable to the applicant. On the
contrary, the prosecution's own witnesses have consistently demolished the
allegations against him.
25. In these circumstances, this Court finds no legal or factual basis to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 14-07-2026
16:47:08

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50144
17 MCRC-32131-2026
compel the applicant to undergo the remaining stages of the trial merely as a

matter of formality. Criminal law cannot be permitted to become an
instrument of oppression by requiring an accused to face a full-fledged trial
when the prosecution itself has failed to produce even a semblance of
evidence connecting him with the alleged offences. The inherent jurisdiction
of this Court exists precisely to prevent such abuse of process and to secure
the ends of justice. This Court is also conscious that ordinarily the
appreciation of evidence falls within the domain of the Trial Court.
However, where the prosecution's own evidence, accepted at its face value,
completely exonerates an accused and renders the possibility of conviction
wholly illusory, the High Court would be failing in its duty if it declines to
exercise its inherent jurisdiction merely because the trial has not formally
concluded. The law does not require Courts to perpetuate futile proceedings
when the inevitable consequence is apparent from the material already
brought on record.
26. In the present case, there is not even an iota of evidence emerging
either from the investigation or from the testimony of the prosecution
witnesses connecting the applicant with the alleged offences. The
prosecution has had full opportunity to substantiate its case and yet none of
its witnesses, including the complainant and the Investigating Officer, has
supported the allegations against the applicant. In such circumstances, the
possibility of recording a lawful conviction against the applicant is virtually
non-existent. Continuation of the criminal proceedings would, therefore,
serve no purpose except subjecting the applicant to unnecessary harassment
and wasting valuable judicial time.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 14-07-2026
16:47:08

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:50144
18 MCRC-32131-2026
27. Accordingly, this Court is satisfied that the present case squarely falls

within the parameters governing exercise of inherent jurisdiction under
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The
continuation of Sessions Trial No. 32 of 2019, insofar as it relates to the
present applicant, would constitute an abuse of the process of the Court and
would not advance the cause of justice. Consequently, the petition deserves
to be and is hereby allowed. The criminal proceedings against the present
applicant in Sessions Trial No. 32 of 2019, arising out of Crime No. 155 of
2010, registered at Police Station Shahnagar, District Panna, for offences
punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal
Code, pending before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Panna, are
quashed. It is, however, made clear that the present order is confined only to
the case of the present Applicant and shall not affect the proceedings pending
against the remaining accused persons, which shall continue and be decided
on their own merits in accordance with law.
28. The petition is, accordingly, allowed. No order as to costs.

(HIMANSHU JOSHI)
JUDGE
rv

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 14-07-2026
16:47:08