Bhaskar Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:36135
1 MCRC-11900-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
th
ON THE 29 OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 11900 of 2026
BHASKAR SHARMA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vijay Shankar Pandey - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ajit Rawat -G.A. for the respondent/State.
ORDER
The present application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 analogous to Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by
the applicants seeking quashment of FIR dated 10.08.2020 registered at
Police Station Bareli, District Raisen vide Crime No. 282/2020 for offences
under Sections 420, 467 and 468 IPC (Annexure A/1), on the ground that the
same constitutes a second FIR in respect of the same incident for which an
earlier FIR has already been registered and charge-sheet filed.
2. The prosecution story, as emerges from the record, is that initially
an FIR bearing Crime No. 222/2020 (Annexure A/3) was registered on
12.07.2020 at Police Station Pipariya, District Hoshangabad, on the
allegation that a truck carrying about 600 bags of urea was intercepted and it
was found that a portion of the consignment (about 250 bags) was not
supported by valid documents, giving rise to suspicion of illegal
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH
SALUJA
Signing time: 08-05-2026
14:17:36

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:36135
2 MCRC-11900-2026
transportation and black marketing. During investigation, statements of the

driver and other material indicated that the fertilizer had been loaded from
the Krishi Upaj Mandi, Bareli, and was being transported to another
district. It is not in dispute that after completion of investigation in the said
case, the police of Police Station Pipariya filed a charge-sheet under the
provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, and the applicants are facing
trial before the competent Court at Pipariya. During the course of the said
investigation, notices under Sections 160 and 91 CrPC were issued to the
applicants (Annexure A/2), and they cooperated with the investigating
agency. Subsequently, after about one month, on 10.08.2020, another FIR
bearing Crime No. 282/2020 (Annexure A/1) came to be registered at Police
Station Bareli, District Raisen, on the complaint of respondent No.4, wherein
allegations were again made regarding illegal handling and diversion of the
same consignment of 600 bags of urea. The contents of this FIR substantially
overlap with the earlier FIR registered at Pipariya, inasmuch as both relate to
the same transaction of loading, transportation and alleged misuse of
fertilizer from the same source and during the same period. It is the grievance
of the applicants that despite the earlier FIR having culminated into filing of
a charge-sheet and commencement of trial, the police at Bareli has continued
investigation in the second FIR for an inordinate period of time, i.e., for
nearly six years, without filing any final report. The applicants assert that
they have been repeatedly called for inquiry and subjected to harassment in
the name of investigation, even though no fresh or independent material has
surfaced against them. The applicants have also placed on record (Annexure
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH
SALUJA
Signing time: 08-05-2026
14:17:36

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:36135
3 MCRC-11900-2026
A/5) various representations and proceedings to show that they approached

higher authorities for fair investigation, and in some inquiries, no substantive
irregularity attributable to them was found. It is further pointed out that the
competent authority under the Cooperative Societies Act has not taken any
adverse action against the applicants, indicating that the alleged irregularities
are not of such nature as to establish criminal misconduct. In the above
factual backdrop, the applicants have approached this Court contending that
the second FIR registered at Police Station Bareli is based on the same cause
of action and identical facts as the earlier FIR registered at Police Station
Pipariya, and therefore, its continuation amounts to abuse of process of law,
warranting interference under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
3. Learned counsel on behalf of the applicants contends that the
impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 282/2020 (Annexure A/1) registered at
Police Station Bareli is wholly illegal and constitutes a clear abuse of the
process of law, as it pertains to the very same transaction and occurrence for
which an earlier FIR bearing Crime No. 222/2020 (Annexure A/3) had
already been registered at Police Station Pipariya. It is submitted that once
the first FIR was registered and investigation culminated in filing of a
charge-sheet, the registration of a second FIR on identical facts is
impermissible in law. It is further argued that despite lapse of an inordinate
period of time (nearly six years) the police authorities at Bareli have failed to
file a charge-sheet and have continued the investigation in a mechanical and
arbitrary manner, thereby subjecting the applicants to continuous harassment.
Learned counsel contends that such indefinite continuation of investigation
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH
SALUJA
Signing time: 08-05-2026
14:17:36

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:36135
4 MCRC-11900-2026
violates the applicants’ fundamental right to fair and speedy investigation

and amounts to misuse of police powers. It is also submitted that the
applicants are government/cooperative employees discharging official duties,
and no direct evidence has been brought on record to connect them with the
alleged offences. Their implication is stated to be solely on the basis of
entries in POS machines, without any independent corroboration. Further,
the competent authorities under the Cooperative Societies Act have not
found any grave irregularity warranting action against the applicants, which
supports their innocence.
4 . Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the
application and submits that the allegations disclose commission of
cognizable offences under Sections 420, 467, and 468 IPC, and therefore the
investigation cannot be interdicted at this stage. It is contended that the FIR
registered at Police Station Bareli is based on a complaint made by a
different complainant (respondent No.4), and certain aspects of the offence,
including black marketing and diversion of urea, required independent
inquiry within the territorial jurisdiction of Bareli. It is further submitted that
the investigation is still in progress, and the Court should not exercise
inherent powers to stifle legitimate prosecution, particularly when disputed
questions of fact are involved. The State further argues that the bar on second
FIR is not absolute and depends upon whether the subsequent FIR relates to
the same transaction or discloses distinct offences or additional facts. It is
submitted that the role of the applicants, their involvement in the alleged
irregularities, and the extent of their complicity can only be determined after
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH
SALUJA
Signing time: 08-05-2026
14:17:36

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:36135
5 MCRC-11900-2026
completion of investigation and appreciation of evidence during trial.

Therefore, it is urged that the present application is premature and deserves
to be dismissed.
5 . Heard all the parties through their counsels and perused the
material available on record.
6. The core issue for determination is whether the second FIR is
founded upon the same set of facts and transaction, or whether it discloses a
distinct and independent occurrence justifying a separate registration. On a
comparative analysis of both FIRs, it is evident that the substratum of
allegations in both cases is identical. Both FIRs pertain to the alleged illegal
transportation and misappropriation of 600 bags of urea, which were loaded
from the Krishi Upaj Mandi, Bareli and transported through a truck. The role
attributed to the applicants in both FIRs emanates from the same transaction
and the same chain of circumstances. The variation, if any, in the narration of
facts or the description of the vehicle does not alter the essential identity of
the occurrence.
7. The first FIR (Annexure A/3) was registered on 12.07.2020 by
Police Station Pipariya and the investigation therein has admittedly been
completed, culminating in filing of charge-sheet and pendency of trial before
the competent Court. Thus, the criminal law was already set in motion in
respect of the said occurrence and the investigative machinery had reached
its logical stage. The second FIR (Annexure A/1), registered subsequently on
10.08.2020 by Police Station Bareli, is based on the same incident, merely
presented from a slightly different perspective by the complainant. Such a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH
SALUJA
Signing time: 08-05-2026
14:17:36

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:36135
6 MCRC-11900-2026
subsequent FIR, in the absence of any new or distinct offence or fresh set of

facts, cannot be sustained in law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.T.
Antony vs State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 181 has categorically held that there
cannot be a second FIR in respect of the same cognizable offence or
occurrence and that any further information in respect of the same incident
must be treated as part of the first FIR and investigated accordingly. The
relevant principle laid down is that registration of multiple FIRs for the same
transaction would lead to abuse of the statutory power of investigation.
8. This principle has been further elaborated in Anju Chaudhary vs
State of U.P. (2013) 6 SCC 384, wherein it has been held that the test to
determine the permissibility of a second FIR is whether the subsequent FIR
relates to the same incident forming part of the same transaction. If it does,
the same is liable to be quashed. Applying the aforesaid principles to the
present case, this Court finds that both FIRs undeniably relate to the same
occurrence and form part of a single transaction. There is no allegation of
any subsequent or independent act giving rise to a fresh cause of action.
Therefore, the second FIR cannot be justified on the ground of discovery of
new facts. The reliance placed by the applicants on the judgment of this
Court in M.Cr.C. No. 660/2016 (Karan Kapoor vs State of M.P.) (Annexure
A/4) is well founded. In the said case, this Court, after considering the law
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, held that once a charge-sheet has
been filed in respect of an offence, a second FIR on similar allegations is not
maintainable and is liable to be quashed. The ratio of the said judgment
squarely applies to the facts of the present case.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH
SALUJA
Signing time: 08-05-2026
14:17:36

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:36135
7 MCRC-11900-2026
9. It is also significant to note that despite lapse of considerable time

since registration of the second FIR, the investigating agency has neither
filed a charge-sheet nor brought any substantive material on record to justify
continuation of investigation. The prolonged pendency of investigation,
coupled with repeated summoning of the applicants, amounts to undue
harassment and misuse of the investigative process.
10. The contention of the State that the Court should not interfere at
the stage of investigation cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case.
While it is true that the inherent powers of this Court are to be exercised
sparingly, it is equally well settled that where the continuation of proceedings
amounts to abuse of process of law or where the allegations do not disclose a
legally sustainable case, this Court is duty bound to intervene. The present
case is a classic example where the same set of facts has been subjected to
multiple FIRs, thereby exposing the applicants to parallel investigations and
potential double jeopardy. Such a course is not only impermissible in law but
also contrary to the principles of fair investigation and administration of
criminal justice. Furthermore, the material placed on record (Annexure A/5)
indicates that various representations and inquiries have not revealed any
concrete evidence against the applicants. The mere mention of names of the
applicants in connection with Point of Sale (POS) entries, without any direct
evidence of involvement in the alleged offence, cannot justify prolonged
investigation.
11. In addition, the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Robert
Lalchungnunga Chongthu Vs. State of Bihar (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2511),
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH
SALUJA
Signing time: 08-05-2026
14:17:36

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:36135
8 MCRC-11900-2026
as relied upon by the applicants, is relevant, wherein it has been held that an

accused cannot be made to suffer indefinitely due to prolonged and uncertain
investigation, as it adversely affects their fundamental rights.
12. In view of the foregoing analysis and the settled position of law,
this Court finds that the impugned FIR dated 10.08.2020 (Annexure A/1)
registered at Police Station Bareli is, in substance, a second FIR arising out
of the very same transaction and incident which had already been made the
subject matter of FIR dated 12.07.2020 (Annexure A/3) registered at Police
Station Pipariya. The allegations in both FIRs are founded on identical facts
relating to the same consignment of urea and do not disclose any distinct or
subsequent occurrence so as to justify a fresh registration. Consequently, the
registration as well as continuation of the second FIR is legally
impermissible and amounts to clear abuse of the process of law.
13. Accordingly, the present application is hereby allowed. The FIR
dated 10.08.2020 registered vide Crime No. 282/2020 at Police Station
Bareli, District Raisen (Annexure A/1), for offences punishable under
Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC, along with all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed. It is, however, made clear
that the proceedings arising out of the earlier FIR dated 12.07.2020
(Annexure A/3), registered at Police Station Pipariya, Hoshangabad shall
continue and be carried to their logical conclusion in accordance with law,
without being influenced by the present order.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI)
JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH
SALUJA
Signing time: 08-05-2026
14:17:36

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:36135
9 MCRC-11900-2026
Jasleen


Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH
SALUJA
Signing time: 08-05-2026
14:17:36