Sayyed Insaf Husain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:36545
1 MCRC-8571-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
th
ON THE 7 OF MAY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 8571 of 2026
SAYYED INSAF HUSAIN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Vivek Shukla - Advocate for the petitioner through V.C.
Smt. Priyanka Mishra - G.A. for the respondent/State.
Ms. Rubi Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the respondent/objector.
ORDER
This petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred by the applicant seeking quashment of FIR
No.197/2025 dated 22.11.2025 registered at Police Station Goharganj,
District Raisen, and consequential Charge-sheet No.06/2026 dated
29.01.2026 filed before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Goharganj in Sessions Case No.06/2026, insofar as the present applicant is
concerned. The applicant has further prayed for quashing of proceedings
initiated against him for offences punishable under Sections 238(a), 249(b),
and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 19 and 21(1) of
the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
2. As per the case of the prosecution, FIR bearing Crime
No.197/2025 came to be registered at Police Station Goharganj on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH
SALUJA
Signing time: 12-05-2026
12:35:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:36545
2 MCRC-8571-2026
22.11.2025 on the complaint lodged by the mother of a minor victim girl

aged about six years. The allegations contained in the FIR disclose
commission of a brutal sexual assault upon the minor victim allegedly
committed by accused Salman alias Nazar on the night of 21.11.2025
between 07:30 PM to 09:00 PM. The FIR invokes serious offences under the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and POCSO Act. The prosecution case further
reveals that after commission of the offence, accused Salman absconded
from the locality and evaded arrest for several days. During the course of
investigation, a police search operation was undertaken and ultimately
accused Salman was apprehended from Bhopal on 27.11.2025 after an
alleged encounter during which he sustained injuries while attempting to
flee. It is alleged that during custodial interrogation, accused Salman
disclosed before the investigating authorities that during the period of
abscondence he was provided shelter and assistance by the present applicant
namely Sayyed Insaf Husain and co-accused persons namely Zaid Khan and
Shehzad Khan. According to the prosecution, the applicant knowingly
provided accommodation, labour work, and financial support to accused
Salman despite being aware of his involvement in the heinous offence
committed against the minor victim. On the basis of such disclosure
statements and further investigation, the applicant was arrested on
02.12.2025 and later enlarged on bail by the competent Court vide order
dated 10.12.2025.
3 . Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case only because he
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH
SALUJA
Signing time: 12-05-2026
12:35:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:36545
3 MCRC-8571-2026
happened to know co-accused Zaid Khan, who was engaged in construction

work at the applicant’s premises. It is contended that the applicant had no
connection whatsoever with the principal offence and was neither named in
the FIR nor implicated by any independent witness at the initial stage of
investigation. Learned counsel submits that the entire prosecution story
against the applicant is founded solely upon the alleged memorandum and
confession of co-accused Salman recorded by police authorities during
investigation. It is argued that such confessional statements made before
police officers are inadmissible in evidence and cannot constitute the sole
basis for prosecution. It is further contended that the applicant had entrusted
construction work of his house to contractor Zaid Khan, who in turn
executed a subcontract in favour of one Dharmendra on 31.10.2025. Learned
counsel submits that as per the terms of the contract, the responsibility of
appointing labourers rested entirely upon subcontractor Dharmendra and the
applicant had no concern with the engagement of labourers or supervision of
construction work. Learned counsel further submits that during interrogation
the applicant had specifically informed the police authorities regarding the
said contractual arrangement and had also supplied a copy of the agreement,
however the investigating agency deliberately omitted the same from the
charge-sheet with mala fide intention to falsely implicate the applicant. It is
argued that even according to the prosecution story, accused Salman merely
worked as a labourer for two or three days at the construction site and there
is absolutely no evidence showing that the applicant had prior knowledge
regarding the offence allegedly committed by Salman.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH
SALUJA
Signing time: 12-05-2026
12:35:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:36545
4 MCRC-8571-2026
4. Learned counsel submits that the essential ingredients of Section

249(b) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita dealing with harboring of offender are
completely absent in the present case. It is argued that in order to attract
Section 249(b), the prosecution must establish intentional harboring of an
offender with knowledge of commission of the offence and with the
intention to screen such offender from legal punishment. According to
learned counsel, there is no material whatsoever indicating that the applicant
intentionally concealed accused Salman or acted with requisite mens rea.
5. It is further contended that the ingredients of Section 238(a) of
BNS are also not attracted because there is no allegation that the applicant
caused disappearance of evidence or furnished false information to the
investigating agency. Learned counsel submits that the allegations regarding
disposal of mobile phones and destruction of evidence pertain only to co-
accused Shehzad Khan and not to the present applicant. So far as Sections 19
and 21(1) of the POCSO Act are concerned, learned counsel argues that
liability under the said provisions can arise only when a person knowingly
fails to report commission of a POCSO offence. It is submitted that there is
no legally admissible material establishing that the applicant had actual
knowledge regarding commission of the offence by accused Salman.
Learned counsel further submits that the prosecution has attempted to rope in
the applicant only due to public outrage generated by the heinous nature of
the offence. It is argued that the investigating agency acted in an overzealous
manner and mechanically implicated persons remotely connected with the
principal accused without any substantive evidence.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH
SALUJA
Signing time: 12-05-2026
12:35:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:36545
5 MCRC-8571-2026
6. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335;
Rajiv Thapar vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330; Amit Kapoor vs.
Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460; and Anand Kumar Mohatta vs. State
(NCT of Delhi), (2019) 11 SCC 706 to contend that where the allegations
made in the FIR and charge-sheet do not disclose commission of any
offence, the High Court ought to exercise its inherent powers to prevent
abuse of process of law.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the petition and
submitted that sufficient incriminating material has been collected during
investigation against the present applicant. It is submitted that the statements
recorded clearly indicate that accused Salman informed the applicant and co-
accused regarding the offence committed by him and despite such disclosure
the applicant provided shelter and employment to him. Learned counsel for
the stae submits that the witness statements contained in the charge-sheet
reveal that the applicant and co-accused persons had seen the photographs
and media reports concerning accused Salman and were fully aware that he
was wanted in connection with a serious crime, yet they deliberately failed to
inform the police authorities.
8. Learned counsel for state argues that at the stage of exercising
jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., this
Court is not expected to conduct a roving enquiry into disputed questions of
fact or evaluate admissibility of evidence in detail. It is contended that where
prima facie material exists requiring adjudication during trial, inherent
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH
SALUJA
Signing time: 12-05-2026
12:35:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:36545
6 MCRC-8571-2026
powers ought not to be exercised.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the
material available on record.
10. Before adverting to the merits of the controversy, it is necessary
to reiterate the settled legal principles governing exercise of inherent powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Section 528 BNSS. The inherent jurisdiction
of the High Court is extraordinary in nature and is required to be exercised
sparingly, carefully, and with abundant caution only when continuation of
criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law or when
interference becomes necessary to secure the ends of justice. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (supra) has illustratively
laid down categories of cases wherein criminal proceedings may be quashed.
However, it has consistently been held that at the stage of quashing, the
Court is not required to meticulously appreciate evidence or determine the
probability of conviction.
11. In the present case, it is true that the applicant was not named in
the FIR and no overt act has been attributed to him regarding commission of
the principal offence against the minor victim. However, the allegations
against the applicant pertain to post-occurrence conduct allegedly committed
during the period when accused Salman was absconding after commission of
the principal offence. The charge-sheet reveals that during investigation the
police recorded statements indicating that accused Salman allegedly
disclosed his identity and involvement in the offence before the applicant
and co-accused persons and thereafter the applicant allegedly provided work
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH
SALUJA
Signing time: 12-05-2026
12:35:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:36545
7 MCRC-8571-2026
and shelter to him.

12. At this stage, the contentions raised by the applicant regarding
falsity of the statements, inadmissibility of the confession, and suppression
of any document by the investigating agency are matters which require
appreciation of evidence during trial and cannot be conclusively adjudicated
in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Whether the applicant genuinely
lacked knowledge regarding commission of the offence or whether he
knowingly provided assistance to accused Salman are disputed questions of
fact which can only be determined after recording evidence before the trial
Court. Similarly, the contention that the applicant had no supervisory control
over the labourers engaged at the construction site by virtue of the
subcontract agreement is essentially a defence available to the applicant
during trial. Such disputed factual pleas cannot ordinarily form the basis for
quashing criminal proceedings at the threshold.
13. Prima facie, the material collected during investigation discloses
allegations attracting ingredients of offences punishable under Sections
249(b) and 238(a) of BNS and Sections 19 and 21(1) of the POCSO Act.
Whether such allegations ultimately stand proved beyond reasonable doubt is
a matter for trial and not for adjudication in inherent jurisdiction.
14. The submission regarding absence of mens rea also cannot be
conclusively accepted at this stage because the prosecution specifically
alleges that the applicant had knowledge regarding involvement of accused
Salman in the offence and despite such knowledge provided assistance to
him. The truthfulness or otherwise of such allegations can only be examined
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH
SALUJA
Signing time: 12-05-2026
12:35:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:36545
8 MCRC-8571-2026
during trial upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence.

15. The judgments relied upon by the applicant do not advance his
case in the peculiar facts of the present matter. The present case cannot be
categorized as one where the allegations are so absurd or inherently
improbable that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion regarding
existence of a prima facie case. This Court is also mindful of the gravity and
seriousness of the principal offence involving sexual assault upon a minor
child under the POCSO Act. Allegations regarding harbouring and shielding
the principal offender after commission of such offence are required to be
examined with due seriousness during trial.
16. The contention regarding mala fide implication and overzealous
investigation also cannot be accepted at this stage in absence of
unimpeachable material demonstrating clear abuse of process. Mere assertion
of false implication is insufficient for quashing criminal proceedings when
prima facie material exists in the charge-sheet.
17. Upon careful consideration of the FIR, charge-sheet, witness
statements, and material collected during investigation, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the prosecution cannot be said to be wholly
groundless or frivolous insofar as the present applicant is concerned. The
material available on record raises triable issues requiring adjudication before
the competent trial Court and this Court, while exercising inherent
jurisdiction, cannot undertake a detailed appreciation of evidence or record
findings on disputed factual issues.
18. Consequently, this Court does not find any exceptional
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH
SALUJA
Signing time: 12-05-2026
12:35:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:36545
9 MCRC-8571-2026
circumstance warranting interference under Section 528 BNSS read with

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the present
petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.
19. It is however made clear that any observations made herein are
purely for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not influence
the trial Court while deciding the case on merits. Pending interlocutory
applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI)
JUDGE
Jasleen

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH
SALUJA
Signing time: 12-05-2026
12:35:54