Sanjay Bhandari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7857
1 MCRC-6920-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
th
ON THE 5 OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 6920 of 2025
SANJAY BHANDARI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nirmal Sharma with Shri Aditya Dixit - Advocate for the
petitioner.
Shri Pavan Singh Raghuwanshi- Advocate for respondent No.2.
Shri Anurag Sharma - PP for the State.
ORDER
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the legality, propriety and correctness
of the order dated 08.01.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Vidisha in RCT No.1279/2019, whereby the application filed by
the present petitioner seeking discharge has been rejected on the ground that
the case being triable as a summary/summons case, there is no stage of
discharge.
2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are that an
FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337
of IPC against the driver of truck bearing registration No. MP-09-GG-5625,
namely Kashiram Adivasi. As per the prosecution story, the complainant was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 3/7/2026
10:44:24 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7857
2 MCRC-6920-2025
sitting in his house when the aforesaid truck was driven rashly and

negligently and it collided with the house of the complainant, resulting in
damage to the house as well as another vehicle.
3. After registration of the FIR, the matter was investigated and
ultimately charge-sheet was filed on 01.11.2019. During investigation, the
driver of the truck was found responsible for rash and negligent driving.
However, the present petitioner, being the registered owner of the vehicle,
was also implicated for the offence punishable under Sections 146/196 of the
Motor Vehicles Act on the allegation that the vehicle was not insured at the
time of the accident.
4. The petitioner contends that since he was not originally implicated
in the FIR, the correct factual position regarding insurance of the vehicle
could not be brought on record during investigation. Subsequently, the
petitioner moved an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. before the trial
Court for bringing the insurance policy on record.
5. The said application was allowed and the insurance policy was taken
on record. From the said policy it was revealed that the vehicle was insured
for the period 05.03.2019 to 04.03.2020 and therefore on the date of the
alleged incident i.e. 31.10.2019, the vehicle was having a valid and
subsisting insurance policy.
6. On the basis of the said material, the petitioner filed an application
seeking discharge on the ground that no offence under Sections 146/196 of
the Motor Vehicles Act was made out against him. However, the learned trial
Court rejected the application holding that since the case is triable as a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 3/7/2026
10:44:24 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7857
3 MCRC-6920-2025
summary/summons case, there is no stage of discharge. Being aggrieved by

the said order, the present petition has been filed invoking the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order
passed by the learned Magistrate is contrary to law and suffers from non-
application of mind. It is contended that the learned trial Court rejected the
application solely on the technical ground that there is no provision of
discharge in a summons case, without examining the merits of the matter.
Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Municipal Council, Raipur v. State of M.P., AIR 1970 SC 1923, wherein it
has been observed that even in summons cases the Court is not powerless
and can drop proceedings where the allegations and materials do not justify
continuation of the prosecution. Reliance has also been placed on the
decision of the Kerala High Court in Kamala Rajaram v. D.Y.S.P., Office of
the SP (Rural), 2010 (2) KLT 655 (Kerala High Court) wherein it has been
held that notwithstanding the dictum in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal, AIR
2004 SC 4674 the Magistrate has power under Sections 251 and 258 Cr.P.C.
to discontinue proceedings in summons cases where the materials placed
before the Court do not justify continuation of proceedings. Further reliance
has been placed on the judgment in Arvind Kejriwal v. Amit Sibal, 2014
SCC OnLine Del 3152 wherein it has been held that courts possess inherent
powers to do justice and prevent abuse of process even where no express
provision exists in the Code. Learned counsel further relied upon the
principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, (2010) 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 3/7/2026
10:44:24 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7857
4 MCRC-6920-2025
SCC 368, wherein the scope of discharge has been elaborately explained and

it has been held that the Court must apply its judicial mind to the material on
record and cannot act merely as a mouthpiece of the prosecution.
8. It is further argued that in the present case the sole allegation against
the petitioner is that the vehicle was uninsured. However, the insurance
policy placed on record clearly establishes that the vehicle was duly insured
on the date of the incident. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against
the petitioner would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the State as well as learned counsel
for respondent No.2 raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner ought to
have approached the Sessions Court before invoking the inherent jurisdiction
of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
10. Heard counsel for the rival parties and perused the entire record.
11. Considering that the issue involved in the present case pertains to a
pure question of law and the impugned order suffers from patent illegality,
this Court deems it appropriate to examine the matter on merits so as to
prevent miscarriage of justice.
12. The impugned order reveals that the Magistrate has rejected the
application solely on the ground that the case is triable as a
summary/summons case and therefore there is no stage of discharge.
13. It is true that Section 227 Cr.P.C. applies to cases triable by the
Court of Sessions. However, it cannot be said that the Magistrate is
powerless to terminate proceedings in a summons case where the material on
record does not disclose commission of any offence.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 3/7/2026
10:44:24 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7857
5 MCRC-6920-2025
14. At this juncture, reference may be made to Section 258 of the

Cr.P.C., which provides power to the Magistrate to stop proceedings in
certain cases. The said provision reads as under:

“In any summons case instituted otherwise than upon complaint, a
Magistrate of the first class may, for reasons to be recorded by
him, stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any
judgment and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after
recording evidence of principal witnesses, pronounce a judgment
of acquittal and in any other case release the accused and such
release shall have the effect of discharge.”
15. Thus, the statute itself confers power upon the Magistrate to stop
proceedings at any stage in a summons case instituted on a police report.
16. The Supreme Court in Municipal Council, Raipur v. State of M.P.
(supra)has recognized that criminal courts are not expected to mechanically
continue proceedings where the material on record does not disclose any
offence. Similarly, the Kerala High Court in Kamala Rajaram v.
D.Y.S.P. (supra) has held that the combined reading of Sections 251 and 258
Cr.P.C. empowers the Magistrate to discontinue proceedings where
continuation would result in injustice.
17. Further, in Arvind Kejriwal v. Amit Sibal, (supra) it has been held
that courts possess inherent powers to secure the ends of justice and prevent
abuse of process. The Supreme Court in Sajjan Kumar v. CBI (supra) has
laid down that at the stage of considering whether the accused should face
trial, the Court must evaluate whether the material on record discloses the
ingredients of the alleged offence.
18. In the present case, the only allegation against the petitioner is that
the vehicle involved in the accident was not insured and therefore the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 3/7/2026
10:44:24 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7857
6 MCRC-6920-2025
petitioner is liable under Sections 146/196 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

19. However, the record clearly reveals that the insurance policy of the
vehicle has been produced before the trial Court and the same demonstrates
that the vehicle was insured for the period 05.03.2019 to 04.03.2020.
20. The alleged accident took place on 31.10.2019, which falls within
the period of the said insurance policy. Therefore, the very foundation of the
prosecution case against the petitioner stands demolished.
21. Apart from this allegation, there is no material whatsoever on
record to show involvement of the petitioner in commission of any offence.
The allegation of rash and negligent driving is against the driver of the
vehicle and not against the petitioner.
22. Therefore, even if the entire prosecution case is accepted at its face
value, no offence under Sections 146/196 of the Motor Vehicles Act is made
out against the petitioner.
23. In such circumstances, compelling the petitioner to undergo
criminal trial would amount to unnecessary harassment and abuse of the
process of law. The trial Court instead of examining the merits of the
application rejected the same merely on the technical ground that the
proceedings are summary in nature. Such an approach cannot be sustained in
law.
24. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 passed by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vidisha in RCT No.1279/2019 suffers from legal
infirmity and deserves to be set aside. Considering that the material on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 3/7/2026
10:44:24 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7857
7 MCRC-6920-2025
record clearly demonstrates that the vehicle of the petitioner was duly

insured on the date of the incident, continuation of criminal proceedings
against the petitioner would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.
25. Consequently, the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
i s allowed. The impugned order dated 08.01.2025 passed by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vidisha in RCT No.1279/2019 is hereby set aside.
The Magistrate is directed to exercise the power under Section 258 Cr.P.C.
and stop the proceedings against the present petitioner, and the petitioner
shall be released from the said proceedings, which shall have the effect of
discharge. It is clarified that the trial against the remaining accused persons
shall proceed in accordance with law.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
Vishal

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 3/7/2026
10:44:24 AM