Dr Girja Shankar Gupta vs Sachin Yadav

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32147
1 MCRC-41685-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
th
ON THE 16 OF OCTOBER, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 41685 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC030231652026
DR GIRJA SHANKAR GUPTA
Versus
SACHIN YADAV AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vikram Pippal- PP for the State.
Shri Sanjay Sharma with Shri Deepak - Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Shri C.P. Sharma with Raj Shrivastava - Advocate for the respondent No.2/Dean,
GRMC, Gwalior.
.....................................................................................................................................................
Heard on: 12.10.2026
Delivered on: 16.10.2026.
ORDER
The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 528 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “the
BNSS”), seeking quashment of the order dated 19.08.2026 passed by the
Court of XXI Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, in Criminal Revision No.
1/2026, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed, as
well as the order dated 15.07.2026 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Gwalior, in UNCR No. 3335/2026, whereby an application
purportedly preferred under Section 175(3) of the BNSS was allowed and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/16/2026
5:01:11 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32147
2 MCRC-41685-2026
directions were issued to the police to register an FIR and investigate the

allegations against the petitioner.
2. The facts giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that in the
year 2019, Gajra Raja Medical College, Gwalior, issued an advertisement
inviting applications for appointment to the post of Superintendent at the
Super Speciality Hospital, Gwalior. The petitioner submitted his application
for the aforesaid post. Respondent No.1/complainant subsequently alleged
that the petitioner had submitted two experience certificates purportedly
issued by Max Super Speciality Hospital, Patparganj, Delhi, relating to his
experience as Hospital Superintendent and Floor Superintendent, for the
purpose of securing the aforesaid appointment. It was further alleged that,
upon verification, Max Super Speciality Hospital informed the Dean, G.R.
Medical College, Gwalior, that no person by the name of Dr. Girja Shankar
Gupta had been employed in the said hospital and that the hospital had not
issued the certificates in question. The complainant also alleged that during
the relevant period, the petitioner was serving at Chaudhary Brahm Prakash
Ayurved Charak Sansthan, Delhi, and, therefore, could not have
simultaneously worked at the aforesaid hospital. On the basis of these
allegations, the complainant claimed to have approached the police
authorities and thereafter the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, but alleged
that no action had been taken. Consequently, an application under Section
175(3) of the BNSS was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Gwalior, seeking directions for registration of an FIR against the
petitioner for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 338,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/16/2026
5:01:11 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32147
3 MCRC-41685-2026
336(3) and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The learned

Magistrate, vide order dated 15.07.2026, allowed the application and directed
the police to register an FIR and undertake investigation. Aggrieved thereby,
the petitioner preferred a criminal revision before the Court of XXI
Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior. The said revision was dismissed by
order dated 19.08.2026, affirming the order passed by the learned
Magistrate. Being aggrieved by both the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has
invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the
BNSS.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the impugned
orders suffer from material illegality, non-application of judicial mind and
failure to comply with the statutory safeguards prescribed under the BNSS. It
is contended that the learned Magistrate proceeded to direct registration of
an FIR without undertaking the scrutiny required by law and without
properly considering the procedural deficiencies in the complaint. It is further
contended that the Magistrate had called for a report from the police
authorities but proceeded to pass the impugned order without receiving or
considering such report. According to the petitioner, once the Magistrate had
considered it appropriate to seek a report from the police, the matter ought
not to have been decided without considering the police officer's submissions
as contemplated under Section 175(3) of the BNSS. Learned counsel further
submits that the complaint is not supported by adequate primary material
establishing that the petitioner had, in fact, submitted the allegedly forged
experience certificates with his application for appointment. It is argued that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/16/2026
5:01:11 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32147
4 MCRC-41685-2026
the complainant has not satisfactorily established the source, authenticity and

connection of the alleged certificates with the petitioner. It is also contended
that the petitioner is a public servant and that the statutory safeguards
applicable to complaints against public servants, wherever attracted, could
not have been bypassed. The Magistrate was required to consider the nature
of the accusation, its connection with the petitioner's official duties, and the
requirements of the applicable statutory provision before issuing directions
for investigation. Learned counsel places reliance upon Priyanka Srivastava
and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported in (2015) 6 SCC
287, and Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra and Others,
Criminal Appeal No. 352 of 2020, decided on 16.01.2025, reported as 2025
INSC 139, to contend that an application seeking police investigation cannot
be entertained mechanically and that the Magistrate must exercise judicial
discretion after complying with the safeguards prescribed by law. It is,
therefore, prayed that the petition be allowed and both the impugned orders
be quashed.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State
submitted that the complaint discloses serious allegations concerning the
alleged use of forged experience certificates for securing public employment.
It is contended that the allegations warrant investigation by the police and
that the Magistrate rightly exercised the jurisdiction conferred under Section
175(3) of the BNSS. It is further submitted that the questions concerning the
authenticity of the certificates, the petitioner's employment during the
relevant period and the circumstances in which the documents were
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/16/2026
5:01:11 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32147
5 MCRC-41685-2026
submitted are matters for investigation and cannot be conclusively

determined at this preliminary stage. The revisional Court, after considering
the rival submissions, has already affirmed the order passed by the learned
Magistrate. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the State as well as
learned counsel for the complainant prayed for dismissal of this petition.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposes the petition and
submits that the complaint contains specific allegations regarding the alleged
use of forged experience certificates for obtaining appointment to the post of
Superintendent. It is contended that the issuing authority of Max Super
Speciality Hospital, Delhi, has denied issuance of the disputed certificates,
thereby warranting investigation into their authenticity, submission and use
in the recruitment process. It is further submitted that the original recruitment
records and relevant service documents are required to be examined by the
investigating agency and that the petitioner’s defence regarding his
qualifications and the alleged non-use of the disputed certificates involves
factual questions which cannot be conclusively determined at this stage.
Learned counsel further submits that the police status report was filed before
the learned Magistrate and that the orders passed by the learned Magistrate
and the revisional Court do not warrant interference under Section 528 of the
BNSS.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 also opposed the petition,
submitting that the grounds raised by the petitioner have already been
considered by the revisional Court and that no patent illegality has been
demonstrated in the impugned orders. It is contended that the disclosure of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/16/2026
5:01:11 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32147
6 MCRC-41685-2026
documents relating to public employment under the Right to Information Act

does not, by itself, invalidate their contents or prevent their examination in
criminal proceedings. Reliance is placed upon Dr. Jayshree Dubey v. CIC
and Others, W.P. No.39771/2024, Lata Kumari Vs. State of UP (2014) 2
SCC 1 and Saadiq B. Hancinmani Vs. State of Karnataka (2025) SCC
OnLine SC 2334. Learned counsel further submits that the alleged denial of
issuance of the experience certificates by the concerned hospital constitutes
sufficient prima facie material to warrant investigation and that the disputed
questions concerning the authenticity and use of the certificates cannot be
adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. Accordingly,
dismissal of the petition is prayed for.
7. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the entire
material available on record.
8. Having considered the rival submissions and examined the material
placed on record, the following questions arise for determination:
(i) Whether the learned Magistrate exercised the jurisdiction under
Section 175(3) of the BNSS in accordance with the mandatory statutory
requirements and applicable judicial precedents?
(ii) Whether the failure to obtain and consider the submissions of the
concerned police officer, after calling for a police report, materially affects
the legality of the order directing investigation?
(iii) Whether the material placed before the Magistrate sufficiently
demonstrated the necessity for invoking the coercive machinery of criminal
investigation, particularly when the petitioner's connection with the alleged
documents was disputed?
(iv) Whether the revisional Court discharged its obligation to examine
the legality, correctness and propriety of the order passed by the learned
Magistrate?
9. Section 528 of the BNSS preserves the inherent powers of the High
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/16/2026
5:01:11 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32147
7 MCRC-41685-2026
Court to give effect to an order under the Sanhita, to prevent abuse of the

process of any Court, and otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Although
such jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly, it may be invoked where the
subordinate Court's order discloses a material procedural illegality or where
continuation of the proceedings would result in an abuse of the process of
law. The present petition does not invite this Court to conduct a trial or to
conclusively determine whether the certificates were forged. The limited
question is whether the orders directing criminal investigation were passed
after compliance with the governing statutory requirements and application
of the requisite judicial mind.
10. Before going further, this Court deems it appropriate to discuss,
analyze and compare the Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 175(3) of
the BNSS.
11. Sub-section (4) of Section 175 of the BNSS is a new addition to
the scheme of investigation of cognizable cases when compared with the
scheme previously existing in Section 156 of the Cr.P.C. It provides an
additional safeguard to a public servant against whom an accusation of
committing a cognizable offence arising in the course of discharge of his
official duty is made. The provision stipulates that any Magistrate who is
empowered to take cognizance under Section 210 of the BNSS may order
investigation against a public servant upon receiving a complaint arising in
course of the discharge of his official duty, only after complying with the
following procedure:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/16/2026
5:01:11 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32147
8 MCRC-41685-2026
a. Receiving a report containing facts and circumstances of
the incident from the officer superior to the accused public
servant; and

b. Considering the assertions made by the accused public
servant as regards the situation that led to the occurrence of the
alleged incident.
12. comparison of Section 175(3) of the BNSS with Section 156(3) of
the Cr.P.C. indicates three prominent changes that have been introduced by
the enactment of BNSS as follows:
a. First, the requirement of making an application to the
Superintendent of Police upon refusal by the officer in charge of a
police station to lodge the FIR has been made mandatory, and the
applicant making an application under Section 175(3) is required
to furnish a copy of the application made to the Superintendent of
Police under Section 173(4), supported by an affidavit, while
making the application to the Magistrate under Section 175(3).
b. Secondly, the Magistrate has been empowered to conduct such
enquiry as he deems necessary before making an order directing
registration of FIR.
c. Thirdly, the Magistrate is required to consider the submissions
of the officer in charge of the police station as regards the refusal
to register an FIR before issuing any directions under Section
175(3).
13. Section 175(3) of the BNSS materially differs from the
corresponding provision contained in Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. It requires the Magistrate, before directing an investigation,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/16/2026
5:01:11 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32147
9 MCRC-41685-2026
to consider the application supported by an affidavit as contemplated by the

provision, undertake such inquiry as may be considered necessary, and
consider the submissions made by the police officer concerned.
14. In Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra and Others ,
Criminal Appeal No. 352 of 2020, decided on 16.01.2025, reported as 2025
INSC 139, the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the procedural safeguards
introduced by Section 175(3) of the BNSS. The Court emphasised that the
Magistrate must apply judicial mind to the application and the submissions
of the concerned police officer and cannot act as a mere conduit for setting
the criminal law in motion. The statutory requirement of considering the
police officer's submissions is not an empty formality. It enables the
Magistrate to assess the nature of the grievance, the action already taken by
the police, the reasons for any refusal to register an FIR and the necessity for
an order directing investigation.
15. In the present case, the material placed before this Court indicates
that the learned Magistrate had called upon the police authorities to submit a
report. However, the impugned order dated 15.07.2026 came to be passed
without the police report being placed on record and considered by the
Magistrate. The fact that the police had allegedly failed to take action on the
complainant's representations could certainly be a relevant circumstance
while considering an application under Section 175(3) of the BNSS.
Nevertheless, such inaction does not dispense with the statutory obligation to
consider the submissions of the concerned police officer before passing an
order under the said provision.The distinction between the failure of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/16/2026
5:01:11 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32147
10 MCRC-41685-2026
police to register an FIR and the statutory duty of the Magistrate while

directing investigation must be maintained. The former may furnish a reason
for approaching the Magistrate; it does not, by itself, eliminate the procedural
requirements governing the exercise of judicial power.
16. In the circumstances of the present case, the order does not
demonstrate that the submissions of the concerned police officer were
obtained and considered in the manner contemplated under Section 175(3) of
the BNSS. The omission assumes significance because the Magistrate had
already called for a report but proceeded to decide the application without
awaiting or considering the same.
17. The Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the
procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate does not satisfy the statutory
standard explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash Ambadkar
(supra).
18. It is also necessary to consider the petitioner's contention that he is
a public servant and that the statutory safeguards relating to complaints
against public servants were not observed. Section 175(4) of the BNSS
provides an additional safeguard where a complaint against a public servant
concerns an accusation arising in the course of discharge of official duties. In
such a case, the Magistrate may order an investigation only after receiving a
report containing the facts and circumstances of the incident from an officer
superior to the accused public servant and considering the assertions made
by the public servant regarding the situation that led to the alleged incident.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/16/2026
5:01:11 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32147
11 MCRC-41685-2026
19. The applicability of Section 175(4) depends upon the nature of the

accusation and its connection with the discharge of official duties. The mere
fact that the person accused holds public employment does not automatically
attract the provision to every allegation made against him.
20. In the present matter, the allegation relates to the purported
submission of experience certificates for securing appointment to a public
post. The learned Magistrate was, therefore, required to examine the nature
of the accusation and determine whether the statutory conditions under
Section 175(4) were attracted. If the complaint fell within the scope of the
said provision, the prescribed safeguards were mandatory and could not be
bypassed. The impugned order does not disclose a satisfactory examination
of this statutory issue. The omission further demonstrates that the relevant
jurisdictional and procedural requirements were not adequately addressed
before the direction for investigation was issued.
21. In Priyanka Srivastava and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Others, (2015) 6 SCC 287, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasised the need
for procedural discipline in applications seeking directions for police
investigation and underscored the importance of an affidavit in support of
such an application. The object of these safeguards is to ensure that the
extraordinary recourse to the Magistrate is not invoked casually or for
oblique purposes. The Magistrate must examine whether the statutory
preconditions have been fulfilled and whether the material placed before the
Court warrants the direction sought.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/16/2026
5:01:11 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32147
12 MCRC-41685-2026
22. In the present case, the petitioner has specifically disputed the

adequacy of the material accompanying the complaint and has questioned
whether the requisite affidavit and supporting documents were properly filed
and considered. The revisional Court dealt with the objection concerning the
date of the affidavit by observing that an affidavit prepared a day before the
application would not, by itself, invalidate the proceedings.
23. This Court agrees with the general proposition that an affidavit
does not become invalid merely because it was sworn before the date of
presentation of the application. However, the issue cannot be reduced to the
date appearing on the affidavit alone. The relevant inquiry is whether the
application, the affidavit and the accompanying material satisfy the
applicable statutory requirements and whether they were judicially
considered before the order was passed. The requirement of application of
mind is substantive and cannot be inferred merely from the fact that the
Magistrate has reproduced the allegations or referred to the documents
accompanying the complaint.
24. The gravamen of the complaint is that the petitioner allegedly
submitted forged experience certificates issued in the name of Max Super
Speciality Hospital, Patparganj, Delhi, for securing appointment to the post
of Superintendent. The petitioner, however, disputes having submitted the
alleged certificates and contends that the documents relied upon by the
complainant do not establish the petitioner's authorship, adoption or use of
those documents. The petitioner further submits that the documents relied
upon have not been adequately connected with the application allegedly
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/16/2026
5:01:11 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32147
13 MCRC-41685-2026
submitted by him. At this stage, the Court is not required to decide the

genuineness of the certificates or to record a final finding on the petitioner's
culpability. Those questions, if warranted by the material, are ordinarily
matters for a lawful investigation and subsequent proceedings.
25. Nevertheless, where a direction for investigation is sought on the
basis of alleged forgery and cheating, the Magistrate must examine whether
the application and the accompanying material disclose a prima facie factual
foundation warranting such a direction. The existence of an allegation cannot
substitute for the judicial assessment required under Section 175(3) of the
BNSS.
26. The complainant's allegations concerning the verification response
from the hospital and the petitioner's alleged simultaneous employment at
two institutions may justify an appropriate inquiry if supported by material.
However, the order under challenge does not adequately address the
petitioner's specific objection regarding the connection between the
certificates relied upon and the documents actually submitted by him. The
revisional Court principally observed that the petitioner would be free to
raise his defence during investigation or trial. While such an observation may
be relevant to disputed questions of fact, it does not answer the anterior
question whether the statutory requirements governing the order for
investigation were duly complied with.
27. This court also went through the locus of the complainant to
agitate this matter. The allegation concerns the alleged use of forged
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/16/2026
5:01:11 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32147
14 MCRC-41685-2026
documents for obtaining appointment to a public post, and the complainant's

authority to pursue the matter has been disputed. It must, however, be
clarified that the mere absence of a personal or direct injury does not
invariably deprive a person of the right to bring information concerning a
cognizable offence to the notice of the competent authorities. Criminal law
does not recognise an inflexible rule that only the person directly injured may
report every alleged offence. At the same time, the complainant's standing,
the source and authenticity of the material relied upon, and the circumstances
in which the complaint has been instituted are relevant considerations while
assessing whether the application warrants the exercise of judicial power.
The Court must guard against the use of criminal proceedings as an
instrument of harassment while ensuring that genuine allegations of
criminality are not thwarted merely because they have been brought by a
third person. In the present case, the objections concerning the source and
authenticity of the documents, the alleged absence of material connecting the
petitioner to the certificates, and the failure to consider the police officer's
submissions required a more careful judicial examination. The impugned
order does not demonstrate that these issues were adequately considered in
conjunction with the statutory requirements.
28. The revisional Court was required to examine the legality,
correctness and propriety of the order passed by the Magistrate. Although the
revisional Court discussed several objections raised by the petitioner, it
substantially proceeded on the footing that the alleged irregularities could be
addressed during investigation or trial. Such an approach overlooks the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/16/2026
5:01:11 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32147
15 MCRC-41685-2026
distinction between disputed questions that properly fall within the domain of

investigation and a failure to comply with the statutory preconditions for
directing that investigation in the first place. The statutory safeguards
incorporated in Section 175(3) of the BNSS cannot be rendered redundant by
relegating every objection to a subsequent stage. Where the legality of the
very order authorising investigation is challenged on the ground that the
prescribed procedure was not followed, the revisional Court must examine
that issue independently and in accordance with the governing law. In view
of the failure to demonstrate compliance with the requirement of considering
the concerned police officer's submissions, and the absence of adequate
consideration of the applicable statutory safeguards concerning public
servants, the revisional Court's affirmance of the Magistrate's order cannot
be sustained.
29. As reliance has been placed by learned counsel for Respondent
No.2 and by learned counsel for respondent No.1 on Saddiq B. Hancinmani
(Supra) Lata Kumari (Supra) and Dr. Jaysgree Dubey Vs. CIC (supra) the
issue before this Court is not whether the disputed certificates are genuine or
forged, but whether the Magistrate exercised the jurisdiction under Section
175(3) of the BNSS in accordance with the statutory safeguards. The denial
of issuance by the concerned institution is undoubtedly relevant; however,
;the material must also be examined to determine whether the disputed
certificates were submitted or used by the petitioner in the recruitment
process and whether the order directing investigation reflects due application
of judicial mind.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/16/2026
5:01:11 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32147
16 MCRC-41685-2026
30. The reliance on Lalita Kumari (Supra) does not dispense with the

requirement subsequently incorporated in Section 175(3) of the BNSS.
Likewise, Sadiq B. Hanchinmani (Supr) cannot be read as laying down that
every complaint alleging use of forged documents must invariably result in
an order directing police investigation irrespective of compliance with the
applicable statutory requirements.
31. The submission of respondent No.1 that a police status report was
filed, as recorded in the order sheet dated 30.06.2026, does not by itself
conclude the issue of statutory compliance. Section 175(3) of the BNSS
requires the Magistrate to consider the application supported by affidavit,
make such inquiry as considered necessary, and consider the submissions
made by police officer. Although, the provision does not expressly mandate a
separate document titled as an "inquiry report" the record must demonstrate
compliance with these requirements. Mere recording of the filing of a status
report, without consideration of its contents and the relevant statutory
requirements, cannot substitute judicial exercise contemplated by the
provisions.
32. In the present case, the impugned order is required to be examined
in the light of the aforesaid statutory mandate. Where the order does not
demonstrate due consideration of the police officer's submissions, the
necessity of police investigation and the material relevant to the allegations,
the direction cannot be sustained merely on the ground that a status report
was filed. The subsequent affirmation of such an order in revision would not
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/16/2026
5:01:11 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32147
17 MCRC-41685-2026
cure the underlying jurisdictional infirmity.

33. On a cumulative consideration of the facts and circumstances, this
Court finds that the impugned order dated 15.07.2026 was passed without
demonstrating compliance with the material procedural safeguards
prescribed under Section 175(3) of the BNSS. The subsequent revisional
order dated 19.08.2026 failed to correct the said defect. The Court reiterates
that the present findings do not constitute an adjudication upon the
genuineness of the experience certificates or the ultimate truth of the
allegations levelled against the petitioner. The conclusion is confined to the
legality of the orders under challenge and the procedural requirements
governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 175(3) of the BNSS. In
these circumstances, permitting the impugned orders to remain operative
would amount to sustaining an order for investigation without satisfactory
compliance with the applicable statutory requirements. Interference under
Section 528 of the BNSS is, therefore, warranted to secure the ends of
justice.
34. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order dated 19.08.2026
passed by the Court of XXI Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, in Criminal
Revision No. 1/2026, as well as the order dated 15.07.2026 passed by the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior, in UNCR No. 3335/2026, are
hereby set aside. The direction issued by the learned Magistrate for
registration of an FIR and investigation, pursuant to the impugned order
dated 15.07.2026, shall accordingly stand quashed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/16/2026
5:01:11 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32147
18 MCRC-41685-2026
35. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined

to the legality of the impugned orders and shall not be construed as a
declaration that the certificates in question are genuine or that the allegations
against the petitioner are false. With the aforesaid observations, the petition
stands allowed and disposed of.
Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Courts below for
information and necessary compliance.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
Vishal

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/16/2026
5:01:11 PM