Anil Singh Bhadoriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32476
1 MCRC-20454-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
nd
ON THE 22 OF OCTOBER, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 20454 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC030114162026
ANIL SINGH BHADORIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Tapendra Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ashwani Mishra- Advocate for the respondent Nos. 3 to 7.
Shri Dinesh Savita - PP for the State.
ORDER
The present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, has been
preferred by the petitioner seeking quashment of FIR registered as Crime
No.111/2010 at Police Station Tentra, District Morena, for the offences
punishable under Sections 307 and 34 of the IPC, Sections 25 and 27 of the
Arms Act, and Sections 11 and 13 of the MPDVPK Act, and added Sections
302, 467, 468, 471 of IPC together with all consequential criminal
proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The brief facts of the case are that an incident dated 22 November
2010, allegedly occurring in the Chambal ravines within the jurisdiction of
Police Station Tentra, District Morena. The police received information
concerning the presence and movement of four to five armed persons in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/27/2026
11:07:59 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32476
2 MCRC-20454-2026
area. Acting upon the said information, a police party proceeded to search for

the suspected dacoits. During the course of the search operation, the armed
persons allegedly opened fire upon the police party and that the police
personnel retaliated in exercise of their right of private defence. During the
exchange of fire, four persons, namely Sanju, Anil, Guddu and Sonu,
sustained fatal injuries. Hence, in this case, these admitted facts that the
police party had an encounter with 5-6 armed dacoits, who after noticing the
police party, without provocation opened fire at Police Party. It is alleged
that in self- defence, the Police Force retaliated and caused gunshot fires. The
firing continued for 10-15 minutes and thereafter, it stopped. The police
party carried out for search and found four unidentified dead bodies, which
were lying at various places. A Panchnama was prepared. The dead bodies
were lifted and on the next day, the dead bodies were identified. The
deceased were found to be criminals, having criminal history. The dead
bodies were sent for postmortem examination. A magisterial enquiry was
ordered and the District Magistrate was requested to conduct an enquiry with
regard to encounter dated 22/11/2010. The District Magistrate, in it turn,
entrusted the enquiry to the then SDM, Sabalgarh. The SDM, Sabalgarh
recorded the statements of 19 witnesses. However, nо opportunity was given
to the petitioner to cross-examine those witnesses. Later on, these witnesses
submitted their affidavits to the District Magistrate, Morena and Divisional
Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena. The SDM submitted the enquiry
report, which according to the petitioner, was not accepted by the District
Magistrate and the matter was remanded back with certain directions.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/27/2026
11:07:59 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32476
3 MCRC-20454-2026
Thereafter, the earlier SDM was transferred and Shri Abhishek Singh joined

as SDM, Sabalgarh, however, he kept the enquiry pending and ultimately,
the enquiry was transferred to Shri AB Singh, Joint Collector, Morena. Shri
AB Singh, also did not permit the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses
and has submitted the enquiry report. The matter was thereafter entrusted to
the Crime Investigation Department (CID). An investigative report attributed
to Inspector Geeta Bhadoria, which records several circumstances considered
by the investigating officer to be indicative of a suspicious encounter. The
report refers, inter alia, to the circumstances surrounding the alleged
exchange of fire, the identification of the deceased persons, the preparation
of the dead-body panchnamas, the medical examination of the deceased, and
the presence or absence of independent corroboration. The report also
records allegations concerning the preparation of the relevant documents and
recommends legal action against the police personnel named therein. There
is also a report prepared by Inspector Yashpal Singh Chauhan in October
2019, after he was assigned further investigation. The said report examines
the earlier closure/final report and identifies matters requiring clarification,
including the recording of police movements, the timing of communication
with the court, the inspection of the scene of occurrence and the
circumstances relating to the presence of the Executive
Magistrate/Tehsildar. There is also a ballistic examination report. The report
identifies several firearms, cartridges, fired cartridge cases, bullets, clothing
and other exhibits. It records certain comparisons between fired cartridge
cases and test-fired ammunition, while also stating that the available marks
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/27/2026
11:07:59 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32476
4 MCRC-20454-2026
on certain bullets were insufficient for a conclusive identification of the

firearm from which they had been discharged.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the continuation of
the investigation and the threat of prosecution after an extraordinary lapse of
time is arbitrary, oppressive and contrary to the guarantee of a fair and
speedy investigation under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is
argued that the incident occurred on 22.11.2010 and that the investigation
was entrusted to the CID in or around 2012. Despite the lapse of
approximately sixteen years, no charge-sheet has been filed against the
petitioner. According to learned counsel, the investigating agency has had
ample opportunity to collect and examine all relevant evidence, and the
continued uncertainty cannot be justified merely by referring to the
seriousness of the allegations. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has
not absconded or deliberately obstructed the investigation. He has remained
available to face the process of law and has continued to serve in public
employment. The prolonged pendency, without a demonstrated and legally
sustainable explanation, has caused continuing prejudice to his professional
standing, reputation and personal liberty. Reliance is placed upon Vakil
Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, (2009) 3 SCC 355, and Pankaj Kumar v.
State of Maharashtra, (2008) 16 SCC 117 , in support of the proposition that
the right to a speedy investigation and trial forms part of the protection
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Learned counsel next
submits that the magisterial inquiry cannot be treated as conclusive proof of
criminal liability. It is argued that the report dated 19.01.2012 characterising
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/27/2026
11:07:59 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32476
5 MCRC-20454-2026
the encounter as suspicious contains conclusions which, according to the

petitioner, are not adequately supported by a proper analysis of the physical,
medical and scientific material. It is further submitted that the inquiry
proceeded without an effective opportunity to the petitioner to challenge the
statements relied upon against him. Learned counsel contends that the
statements of several witnesses were subsequently disputed by affidavits and
that the original statements, the subsequent affidavits and the statements
recorded during the police investigation were not evaluated in a consistent
and transparent manner.
4. Learned counsel further submits that the affidavits of the dependants
of the deceased are material because they dispute the circumstances in which
statements, complaints or representations were prepared and forwarded. It is
argued that, where the very authenticity and voluntary nature of the
statements relied upon during the inquiry are disputed, the investigating
agency cannot selectively rely upon the earlier versions while disregarding
the subsequent material without adequate reasons. It is next contended that
the ballistic and forensic evidence has not been properly appreciated. The
ballistic report, according to the petitioner, does not conclusively establish
that the petitioner fired any particular weapon or caused any particular fatal
injury. The petitioner submits that a scientific report concerning cartridges,
projectiles, firearms or other exhibits must be read within the limits of the
expert opinion actually expressed and cannot, by itself, establish the criminal
liability of a particular police officer. Learned counsel further submits that
the subsequent review report of Inspector Yashpal Singh Chauhan dated
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/27/2026
11:07:59 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32476
6 MCRC-20454-2026
25.10.2019 identifies significant inconsistencies in the earlier inquiry and

investigation. The report raises questions concerning the chronology of the
information received, the recording of the relevant police entries, the
presence of the concerned revenue official at the scene, the preparation of the
dead-body panchnamas, the manner in which witness statements were
recorded and the evaluation of the forensic material. According to learned
counsel, the report of the subsequent investigating officer is relevant because
it demonstrates that the adverse conclusions reached earlier were themselves
subject to substantial reconsideration within the police department. The
petitioner contends that the subsequent report ought not to have been ignored
while assessing whether sufficient material exists to proceed against
him. Learned counsel also draws attention to the two reports attributed to
Inspector Geeta Bhadoria. It is submitted that the later report excludes the
names of three other police officers, namely Shyam Chandra Sharma,
Kaushalendra Kushwaha and Manoj Yadav, without a reasoned explanation,
while the petitioner continues to be implicated. The petitioner does not
contend that the exclusion of other persons automatically entitles him to
similar treatment. His submission is that, where several police officers were
associated with the same incident and the investigative conclusions
concerning them have materially changed, the investigating agency must
disclose an intelligible, evidence-based reason for differentiating the
petitioner's case from theirs. Learned counsel submits that the police version
is supported by the contemporaneous information concerning the presence of
armed persons in the area, the alleged exchange of fire, the recovery of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/27/2026
11:07:59 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32476
7 MCRC-20454-2026
firearms and ammunition, and the scientific material referred to in the

annexures. The petitioner maintains that these circumstances have not
received a fair cumulative assessment. On the question of sanction, learned
counsel submits that the alleged acts arose directly out of an operation
conducted by police personnel in the discharge of their official functions. It
is contended that Section 197 of the CrPC requires previous sanction before
cognizance can be taken of an offence of the nature covered by the provision
and that the petitioner cannot be subjected to prosecution contrary to the
statutory protection available to him. Learned counsel further submits that
the petitioner has been implicated primarily on the basis of the disputed
inquiry conclusions rather than on the basis of clear and independent
material demonstrating his individual role. According to him, the mere fact
that the petitioner was a member of the police party cannot substitute for
proof of the ingredients of the offences alleged.
5. The petitioner also relies upon the fact that the dependants of the
deceased and certain witnesses have submitted affidavits expressing their
objections to the manner in which their statements were recorded. Learned
counsel submits that the Court should not mechanically disregard these
documents merely because they were executed subsequently, particularly
when they are relied upon to demonstrate an apparent inconsistency in the
official record. It is further submitted that the parties have, according to the
petitioner, arrived at a settlement and that certain dependants of the deceased
do not wish to pursue the allegations in the manner previously recorded.
Learned counsel fairly submits that the legal effect of the settlement must be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/27/2026
11:07:59 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32476
8 MCRC-20454-2026
assessed in accordance with the nature of the offences and the applicable

principles governing the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court.
6. In support of the submissions learned counsel relies upon State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, submitting that the inherent
jurisdiction may be exercised where the allegations and material, considered
in their proper legal perspective, do not justify continuation of the criminal
process or where continuation would amount to an abuse of the process of
the Court. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel prays
that the FIR and all consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom be
quashed.
7. Per contra, learned PP for the State opposed the petition and submits
that the allegations concern the deaths of four persons during a police
encounter and that the matter cannot be treated as an ordinary dispute
capable of being terminated merely on the basis of a settlement between
private parties. It is submitted that a magisterial inquiry was ordered
following the incident and that the inquiry ultimately resulted in a report
dated 19.01.2012 characterising the encounter as suspicious. According to
the State, the matter was referred to the National Human Rights Commission
and the inquiry report was forwarded to the competent authorities for further
action. Learned PP further submits that the investigation was thereafter
entrusted to the CID and that the investigating agency is required to examine
the entire record before arriving at a final conclusion. The seriousness of the
allegations, according to the State, warrants a careful examination rather than
termination of the proceedings at the present stage. It is further argued that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/27/2026
11:07:59 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32476
9 MCRC-20454-2026
the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of as premature

because no charge-sheet had then been filed. According to the State, the
subsequent filing of the present application does not, by itself, establish that
the investigation is unlawful or that the petitioner is entitled to quashing of
the FIR. Learned PP also submits that the affidavits now relied upon by the
petitioner cannot be treated as conclusive proof that the earlier statements
were fabricated or that the magisterial inquiry was invalid. Any discrepancy
between the original statements, the subsequent affidavits and the statements
recorded during the police investigation, according to the State, must be
assessed in the context of the entire evidentiary record. It is also submitted
that a magisterial inquiry is not necessarily governed by the same procedural
requirements as a criminal trial and that the absence of an opportunity to
cross-examine witnesses during such an inquiry does not, without more,
establish that the inquiry report is void.
8. Learned PP further submits that the scientific and ballistic material
must be read as a whole and that the petitioner cannot seek quashing merely
by contending that a particular expert opinion does not individually identify
him as the person responsible for a fatal injury. On the issue of sanction, the
State's opposition is that the petitioner cannot claim automatic immunity
from investigation or prosecution merely because the alleged incident
occurred during a police operation. Whether the alleged conduct bears a
reasonable connection with the discharge of official duties, and whether
sanction is required in the circumstances of the case, must be assessed in
accordance with the applicable law and the precise allegations. It is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/27/2026
11:07:59 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32476
10 MCRC-20454-2026
therefore, submitted that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 tendered no
objection to the prayer of the petitioner.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire
material available on record with due care.
11. Upon consideration of the rival submissions, the following
questions arise for determination:
(i) Whether the material placed on record, considered
cumulatively, discloses a legally sustainable basis for continuing
the criminal process against the petitioner.
(ii) Whether the inconsistencies between the magisterial inquiry,
the reports attributed to Inspector Geeta Bhadoria and the
subsequent review report attributed to Inspector Yashpal Singh
Chauhan have a material bearing on the petitioner's case.
(iii) Whether the ballistic and forensic reports establish the
petitioner's individual criminal involvement or leave the
prosecution without sufficient material to sustain the allegations at
the present stage.
(iv) Whether the affidavits of the witnesses and dependants of the
deceased, read with the other contemporaneous records, materially
undermine the reliability of the conclusions relied upon against the
petitioner.
(v) Whether the extraordinary delay in the investigation, in the
particular circumstances of this case, infringes the petitioner's right
to a fair and speedy investigation under Article 21 of the
Constitution.
(vi) Whether Section 197 of the CrPC affords protection to the
petitioner in the circumstances disclosed by the record, and what
legal consequence follows from the absence of sanction, if
sanction is required.
(vii) Whether the impugned FIR and consequential proceedings
are liable to be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of
this Court.
12. At the outset, it is necessary to reiterate that the power under
Section 528 of the BNSS is intended to prevent abuse of the process of the
Court and to secure the ends of justice. The power is extraordinary in nature
and must be exercised with caution, particularly where the allegations
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/27/2026
11:07:59 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32476
11 MCRC-20454-2026
concern serious offences and the loss of human life.

13. The principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction have
been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. The categories identified therein are illustrative
and not exhaustive. They include cases where the allegations, even if taken at
face value, do not constitute an offence, where the allegations and collected
material do not disclose a legally sustainable case, or where continuation of
the criminal process would amount to an abuse of the process of law. At the
same time, the High Court cannot conduct a full-fledged trial in proceedings
for quashing an FIR. It cannot ordinarily decide disputed questions of fact by
choosing between competing versions of witnesses or by substituting its own
appreciation of evidence for that of the investigating agency.
14. The governing principle, therefore, is not whether the petitioner's
version is necessarily true, but whether the continuation of the criminal
process is legally justified on the material available and whether the case falls
within the recognised parameters for interference.
15. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra,
(2021) 19 SCC 401, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasised that
investigation into cognizable offences should not ordinarily be interdicted at
the threshold and that the inherent jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly.
This caution assumes particular significance in a case involving allegations
concerning a police encounter. Accordingly, neither the seriousness of the
allegations nor the petitioner's assertion of innocence can, in isolation,
determine the outcome. The Court must examine the circumstances
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/27/2026
11:07:59 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32476
12 MCRC-20454-2026
cumulatively and apply the established legal standards.

16. The first significant circumstance requiring examination is the
existence of differing conclusions in the record concerning the incident of
22.11.2010. The magisterial inquiry report dated 19.01.2012 characterized
the encounter as suspicious. The petitioner disputes the factual basis of that
conclusion and relies upon subsequent investigative material which,
according to him, calls into question the manner in which the inquiry was
conducted and the evidence evaluated. The subsequent review report
attributed to Inspector Yashpal Singh Chauhan, dated 25.10.2019, records a
number of discrepancies concerning the chronology of the incident, the
relevant police entries, the recording and evaluation of witness statements,
the presence of the revenue official at the scene, the preparation of
panchnamas and the treatment of the forensic material. The significance of
this document lies not in the fact that it was prepared by a police officer, but
in the specific inconsistencies which it identifies and which require
comparison with the underlying records. A subsequent officer's opinion is
not binding upon the Court and does not, merely by being favourable to the
petitioner, extinguish criminal liability. Nevertheless, where the investigating
record itself contains materially differing assessments, the Court is entitled to
consider whether the case against the petitioner rests upon consistent and
legally relevant material or upon conclusions whose evidentiary foundation
is seriously disputed.
17. The petitioner has also placed reliance upon two reports attributed
to Inspector Geeta Bhadoria. It is contended that the later report excluded the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/27/2026
11:07:59 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32476
13 MCRC-20454-2026
names of Shyam Chandra Sharma, Kaushalendra Kushwaha and Manoj

Yadav without a sufficiently reasoned explanation, while the petitioner
continued to face the prospect of prosecution. The exclusion of other
officers, standing alone, would not establish that the petitioner has been
falsely implicated. Criminal liability is individual, and the case against each
person must be assessed on its own merits. However, where the same
occurrence and substantially overlapping material are involved, a change in
the investigative conclusions concerning certain officers may be relevant to
the consistency and rationality of the investigation. If persons initially treated
similarly are subsequently excluded, the record should disclose the
evidentiary basis for such differentiation. The present petition raises a
legitimate question regarding the reasons for the divergent conclusions. The
Court must, however, distinguish between an omission to provide adequate
reasons in an investigative report and the absence of evidence establishing
the ingredients of an offence. The former does not automatically establish the
latter.
18. In the present case, the petitioner's challenge is not confined to the
exclusion of other officers. It is founded upon the cumulative effect of the
differing investigative reports, the disputed witness statements, the scientific
material and the prolonged pendency of the investigation. Considered
together, these circumstances require the Court to examine whether the
material specifically connecting the petitioner with the alleged offences is
sufficient to justify continuation of the criminal process, rather than relying
exclusively upon the general conclusion that the encounter was suspicious.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/27/2026
11:07:59 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32476
14 MCRC-20454-2026
19. The petitioner has also challenged the manner in which the

magisterial inquiry was conducted and, in particular, the manner in which the
statements of certain witnesses were recorded and evaluated. The record
placed before this Court refers to affidavits submitted by witnesses and
dependants of the deceased. Certain deponents have asserted that they signed
blank papers or that statements and representations were prepared or
forwarded without their full knowledge. The petitioner further relies upon
these affidavits to dispute the authenticity and reliability of the material
forming part of the earlier inquiry. Such affidavits cannot automatically be
treated as true merely because they were sworn before a competent authority.
Equally, they cannot be rejected merely because they were executed after the
original inquiry. Their relevance must be assessed in conjunction with the
original statements, the circumstances in which those statements were
recorded, and any subsequent statements made before competent judicial
authorities.
20. The Court is conscious that an affidavit retracting an earlier
statement does not necessarily erase the earlier statement from the record.
The credibility of the deponent, the circumstances of the alleged retraction
and the relationship between the competing versions are ordinarily matters
for appropriate evidentiary evaluation. Nevertheless, where several
deponents dispute the circumstances in which their statements were
recorded, and where their assertions are relied upon to question the
authenticity of the inquiry record itself, the issue cannot be disposed of by
simply treating the earlier statements as unimpeachable.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/27/2026
11:07:59 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32476
15 MCRC-20454-2026
21. The petitioner further relies upon statements recorded under

Section 164 of the CrPC concerning the preparation of the dead-body
panchnamas and the presence of the relevant revenue official at the scene.
He also relies upon the observations attributed to the FSL officer concerning
the presence of the Tehsildar. These materials are relevant to the extent that
they may corroborate or contradict the accounts recorded during the inquiry.
The Court does not treat them as conclusive proof of the police version;
rather, they demonstrate the necessity of examining the record as a whole
and of avoiding selective reliance upon isolated statements. It is also
necessary to clarify that the absence of a right to cross-examine witnesses in
a particular magisterial inquiry does not, by itself, invalidate the inquiry. A
magisterial inquiry is not a criminal trial, and the procedural requirements
applicable to a trial cannot automatically be imported into it. The more
fundamental question is whether the conclusions of the inquiry have
subsequently been treated as a substitute for the evidence required to
establish criminal liability. An inquiry report may provide material for
further investigation, but the ultimate criminal process must rest upon legally
relevant material and the applicable statutory requirements. The Court,
therefore, considers the disputed affidavits and statements as circumstances
relevant to the reliability of the record, without accepting them as conclusive
proof that the original statements were fabricated or that the incident
occurred exactly as asserted by the petitioner.
22. The ballistic report available in the case diary is another important
document relied upon by the petitioner. The report concerns the scientific
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/27/2026
11:07:59 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32476
16 MCRC-20454-2026
examination of firearms, ammunition, cartridge cases, projectiles and other

exhibits connected with the incident. The petitioner's contention is that the
ballistic material does not conclusively implicate him in the alleged offences
and that it does not independently establish that he fired the shot or shots
responsible for any particular death. The Court finds it necessary to
distinguish between the evidentiary value of a ballistic report and the legal
conclusion sought to be drawn from it. A report may establish a
correspondence between a firearm and a cartridge case or projectile, or may
record the condition and characteristics of the exhibits. Such a finding does
not, by itself, identify the person who discharged the firearm or establish the
intention with which it was used. Conversely, the absence of an individual
attribution in a ballistic report does not automatically disprove a prosecution
case based upon other admissible evidence. The report must be read in
conjunction with the medical evidence, the recovery proceedings, the scene-
of-occurrence material, the statements of witnesses and the other
circumstances relied upon by the prosecution. The petitioner also relies upon
the scientific material relating to the hand-wash examination of the deceased
persons and the possibility of deformation of projectiles upon impact with
hard objects. These matters are relied upon to dispute the inference that the
physical condition of the exhibits necessarily contradicts the police
version. The Court cannot, in the present proceedings, independently
reconstruct the exchange of fire or determine the precise trajectory of every
projectile. Such an exercise would exceed the permissible limits of an
application for quashing. What is material at this stage is whether the ballistic
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/27/2026
11:07:59 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32476
17 MCRC-20454-2026
report, read within the limits of the opinion actually expressed, supplies a

clear and independent basis for attributing the alleged criminal act to the
petitioner. The petitioner's submission that the report is not individually
implicative must be considered alongside the remaining material rather than
treated as a complete answer to the prosecution. The scientific report,
therefore, cannot be treated as conclusive proof of either guilt or innocence.
Its significance depends upon its correlation with the other evidence. The
petitioner's case on this point is relevant to the cumulative assessment, but
the absence of a conclusive ballistic attribution cannot alone justify quashing.
23. The petitioner maintains that the police operation was initiated
upon information concerning armed persons in the Chambal ravines and that
the police party returned fire only after being fired upon. The petitioner
further relies upon the alleged criminal antecedents of the deceased and the
recovery of firearms and ammunition. These circumstances may be relevant
to the background in which the police operation was undertaken. However,
the existence of criminal antecedents cannot, by itself, justify the use of
unlawful force or establish that a particular death was caused in lawful
private defence. The legality of the police action must be assessed on the
facts and the evidence relating to the incident itself. Equally, the fact that
four persons died during a police operation does not, by itself, establish that
the police officers committed murder. The prosecution must establish the
requisite ingredients of the offences alleged against the particular accused
persons. The Court must therefore avoid both extremes: it cannot presume
the legality of the encounter merely because the deceased allegedly had
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/27/2026
11:07:59 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32476
18 MCRC-20454-2026
criminal antecedents, nor can it presume an unlawful killing merely because

the deceased persons died during police action. The question is whether the
record discloses legally sufficient material connecting the petitioner with the
alleged offences, assessed in the context of the contemporaneous police
records, the inquiry report, the scientific evidence and the subsequent
investigative material.
24. The petitioner has submitted that the matter has been compromised
and that the dependants of the deceased and certain other witnesses have
executed affidavits disputing the earlier statements or expressing their
unwillingness to pursue the allegations. The Court has considered this
submission. However, the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the
BNSS is not identical to the statutory power of compounding offences under
Section 320 of the CrPC. The fact that private parties have settled a dispute
does not automatically terminate criminal proceedings for offences of a
serious and non-compoundable nature.
25. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court explained the distinction between the compounding of
offences and the exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal
proceedings. The nature and gravity of the offence, its impact upon society
and the circumstances of the particular case are relevant considerations. The
same principle was considered in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat ,
(2017) 9 SCC 641, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that the
power to quash on the basis of settlement must be exercised with due regard
to the nature of the offence and the public interest involved. Allegations
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/27/2026
11:07:59 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32476
19 MCRC-20454-2026
concerning murder or an unlawful encounter resulting in the deaths of four

persons cannot be treated as a purely private dispute. The dependants of the
deceased cannot, by their consent alone, extinguish the State's interest in the
investigation and prosecution of an offence against the public
order. Consequently, the alleged settlement is not treated as an independent
or decisive ground for quashing the impugned FIR. The affidavits are
relevant only to the extent that they may bear upon the reliability of the
statements and the evidentiary foundation of the case, subject to the
applicable rules of law.
26. The petitioner has specifically referred to the exclusion of Shyam
Chandra Sharma, Kaushalendra Kushwaha and Manoj Yadav in the
subsequent investigative report attributed to Inspector Geeta Bhadoria. It is
settled that the criminal liability of an accused must be determined
individually. The fact that another person has not been charge-sheeted or has
been excluded from the investigation does not, by itself, confer a right to
equal treatment where the evidence differs. Nevertheless, the investigative
agency must apply consistent standards in evaluating the material concerning
persons allegedly involved in the same occurrence. Where the underlying
facts and the alleged participation are substantially similar, a material
difference in treatment may require explanation. The petitioner's contention
that the exclusion of the other officers was unsupported by adequate reasons
is therefore a relevant circumstance. It cannot be treated as proof of mala
fides without further material, but it reinforces the necessity of assessing the
case against the petitioner independently of the general conclusions drawn in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/27/2026
11:07:59 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32476
20 MCRC-20454-2026
the earlier inquiry. The Court is particularly mindful that the petitioner's

prayer is directed against the continuation of proceedings against him. The
present application is not a proceeding to determine the criminal liability of
the other police officers, and no finding is being returned regarding their
guilt or innocence.
27. The petitioner was a public servant and that the alleged acts
occurred during a police operation undertaken in the discharge of official
functions. He contends that the absence of the requisite sanction under
Section 197 of the CrPC bars the institution of valid criminal proceedings
against him. The scope of Section 197 requires careful consideration. The
provision is intended to protect public servants from vexatious prosecution
for acts done while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official
duty. It does not confer an absolute immunity from criminal investigation or
prosecution for every act committed by a public servant. The requirement of
sanction depends upon the status of the public servant, the nature of the
alleged act, the applicable statutory conditions and the existence of a
reasonable connection between the act complained of and the discharge of
official duty.
28. In Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari, AIR 1956 SC 44, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court explained that the question of sanction must be examined
with reference to the nature of the alleged act and its connection with official
duty. The mere fact that the accused was a public servant at the relevant time
is not sufficient. In Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2016) 12 SCC 87,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that the protection of sanction is not
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/27/2026
11:07:59 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32476
21 MCRC-20454-2026
intended to shield acts which have no reasonable connection with the

discharge of official duty. The present case involves allegations arising from
a police operation. The petitioner asserts that the firing was undertaken in
self-defence and in the discharge of official duties. The opposing version,
reflected in the magisterial inquiry, questions the legality of the encounter.
The precise character of the alleged acts must therefore be assessed in
accordance with the statutory test and the material available. It would be
legally incorrect to hold that the mere absence of sanction renders the
investigation itself void. Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. principally concerns the
requirement of previous sanction before the Court takes cognizance of the
offences covered by the provision. The applicability of the provision must be
examined at the legally appropriate stage and in the light of the allegations
and the material then available.
29. Equally, it would be incorrect to conclude that sanction is
unnecessary merely because the allegations are serious. The seriousness of
an allegation does not displace the statutory conditions governing sanction
where those conditions are otherwise satisfied. The petitioner's contention
under Section 197 of the Cr.P.c. is therefore a substantial legal ground
requiring consideration, but it cannot be treated as an automatic or
unconditional immunity from investigation. The Court must determine
whether the material and the nature of the alleged acts satisfy the statutory
requirements. The absence of sanction, if sanction is legally required, would
have the consequences prescribed by law at the relevant stage. It cannot be
converted into a general proposition that no investigation may ever be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/27/2026
11:07:59 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32476
22 MCRC-20454-2026
undertaken against a public servant in relation to an incident occurring

during official duty.
30. The incident occurred on 22.11.2010. The investigation was
entrusted to the CID in or around 2012. The petitioner asserts that, despite
the lapse of approximately sixteen years, no charge-sheet has been filed
against him. The right to a speedy investigation and trial is an important
facet of the guarantee of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the
Constitution. The State cannot subject a person to indefinite criminal
uncertainty without justification, particularly where the investigation has
continued for an extraordinary period and the person concerned has not been
shown to have caused the delay.
31. In Vakil Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar ,(supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court considered the consequences of prolonged delay in criminal
investigation and reiterated the constitutional significance of a speedy
process. In Pankaj Kumar v. State of Maharashtra , (2008) 16 SCC 117 , the
Hon'ble Supreme Court also examined the right to speedy trial and the
requirement to assess delay in the context of the circumstances of the
particular case. These decisions do not establish an inflexible rule that every
investigation pending for a specified number of years must be quashed. The
nature of the offence, the complexity of the investigation, the reasons for
delay, the conduct of the accused and the prejudice caused must be
considered. The present case concerns a police encounter resulting in four
deaths. The gravity of the allegations and the necessity of a fair investigation
are relevant considerations. At the same time, the seriousness of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/27/2026
11:07:59 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32476
23 MCRC-20454-2026
allegations cannot justify an unexplained and indefinite investigation without

regard to the constitutional rights of the person under investigation. The
petitioner submitted that he has remained available to the investigating
agency and that the prolonged pendency is not attributable to any deliberate
obstruction on his part.
32. The delay must also be examined alongside the other
circumstances: the existence of differing inquiry and investigative
conclusions, the disputed witness statements, the limitations of the ballistic
report and the absence of a charge-sheet against the petitioner despite the
long period available for investigation. Considered cumulatively, these
circumstances raise a substantial question whether the continued
investigation against the petitioner has remained within the bounds of a fair
and reasonable process. The constitutional guarantee is not satisfied merely
because the investigating agency continues to retain a matter on its file. At
the same time, the Court must not infer that the petitioner is innocent merely
because the investigation has been prolonged. The proper question is
whether, in the particular circumstances, the continuation of the criminal
process is supported by sufficient material and a legally sustainable
justification.
33. The Court has considered the original version of the incident, the
magisterial inquiry report, the reports attributed to Inspector Geeta Bhadoria,
the subsequent review report attributed to Inspector Yashpal Singh Chauhan,
the ballistic and forensic material, the affidavits of witnesses and dependants
of the deceased, and the submissions advanced by the State.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/27/2026
11:07:59 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32476
24 MCRC-20454-2026
34. The Court reiterates that none of these documents, taken

individually, is necessarily conclusive. The magisterial inquiry report is not a
judicial determination of guilt. A subsequent police review report does not
automatically exonerate an accused. A witness affidavit does not erase an
earlier statement merely by contradicting it. A ballistic report must be
interpreted according to its actual findings. A settlement cannot terminate a
prosecution for a serious non-compoundable offence merely by consent. The
decisive consideration is whether the totality of the material discloses a
legally sustainable basis for continuing the criminal process against this
petitioner.
35. The petitioner's case is that the investigation has proceeded on
conclusions drawn from a disputed inquiry, despite subsequent materials
calling into question the reliability of the witness statements and the
consistency of the investigative assessment. The petitioner further submits
that the investigation is having no pace despite the passage of approximately
sixteen years. The State, on the other hand, relies upon the seriousness of the
incident and the suspicious nature of the encounter as recorded in the
magisterial inquiry. The Court does not minimise either the seriousness of
the allegations or the public interest in ensuring accountability for deaths
occurring during police action. However, the seriousness of the allegation
cannot substitute for the requirement that the criminal process be supported
by legally relevant material. Nor can an inquiry report, without more, be
treated as establishing the individual criminal liability of every police officer
associated with the incident. The Court is of the view that the petitioner's
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/27/2026
11:07:59 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32476
25 MCRC-20454-2026
challenge must be assessed by reference to the material specifically

connecting him with the alleged offences, rather than by reference only to
the general suspicion surrounding the encounter.
36. The divergence between the reports, the disputed circumstances in
which certain statements were recorded, the limitations of the ballistic
material in identifying an individual actor, and the extraordinary duration of
the investigation are relevant circumstances which must be considered
together. These circumstances do not establish that every allegation in the
magisterial inquiry is false, nor do they permit the Court to pronounce upon
the guilt or innocence of the petitioner as if conducting a trial. They do,
however, require a legally sustainable basis for the continued invocation of
the criminal process against him. The Court has also considered the
argument that the petitioner is entitled to protection under Section 197 of the
CrPC, but its applicability must be determined in accordance with the
statutory conditions and the nature of the alleged acts. Similarly, the alleged
settlement is not being treated as the basis for terminating the prosecution.
The decision must rest upon the applicable principles governing inherent
jurisdiction, the constitutional requirement of a fair and reasonable process,
and the material available in the case.
37. The question is not whether an encounter involving four deaths
should ordinarily be investigated. Such incidents plainly warrant a fair and
thorough investigation. The question is whether, after the passage of
approximately sixteen years and in the circumstances disclosed by the
record, continuation of the criminal process against the present petitioner can
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/27/2026
11:07:59 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32476
26 MCRC-20454-2026
be justified in law. The inherent jurisdiction exists to prevent a criminal

process from becoming an instrument of oppression or indefinite uncertainty.
It must, however, be exercised only where the facts and the legal position
justify such intervention, and not merely because an accused disputes the
prosecution's version.
38. Upon the cumulative assessment of the material relied upon by the
petitioner, the Court considers that the petition raises substantial concerns
regarding the evidentiary foundation, consistency and duration of the
proceedings. The Court accordingly proceeds to consider the relief in the
light of the limited purpose for which the inherent jurisdiction is invoked,
without treating the present proceedings as a trial on the merits of the
encounter or as a determination of the liability of persons who are not before
this Court in the present application.
39. The most significant circumstance which weighs with this Court is
the extraordinary passage of time since the incident dated 22.11.2010. The
matter has passed through a magisterial inquiry and successive stages of
investigation, yet, as asserted by the petitioner, the investigation has not
culminated to final conclusion. The question is not merely whether the
investigation has taken a long time, but whether such prolonged pendency is
justified by identifiable investigative necessities and whether the material
collected during this extended period has yielded a legally sustainable basis
for proceeding against the petitioner. The right to a fair procedure under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be reduced to a formality.
Although delay by itself does not automatically extinguish criminal liability,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/27/2026
11:07:59 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32476
27 MCRC-20454-2026
an unexplained and extraordinary delay, when considered alongside the

nature of the available evidence and the absence of a reasoned final
conclusion, assumes substantial constitutional significance. The criminal
process cannot be permitted to remain indefinitely inconclusive merely
because the allegations are serious. In the peculiar circumstances of the
present case, the prolonged pendency requires the Court to examine whether
continuation of the proceedings would serve a legitimate investigative
purpose or would instead perpetuate uncertainty without a sufficiently
demonstrated legal foundation.
40. Another circumstance requiring consideration is the nature of the
successive reports forming part of the record. The report attributed to
Inspector Geeta Bhadoria records circumstances which, according to the
investigating officer, cast suspicion upon the encounter and support action
against the police personnel named therein. On the other hand, the
subsequent report prepared by Inspector Yashpal Singh Chauhan examines
the earlier closure/final report and identifies matters requiring clarification,
including aspects relating to police movements, communications with the
court, the scene of occurrence and the presence of the Executive
Magistrate/Tehsildar. This Court does not regard the latter report as an
unconditional exoneration of the petitioner, nor does it disregard the adverse
observations in the former report. The significance of these documents lies in
the fact that the investigative record itself reflects material issues requiring
objective evaluation and a reasoned resolution. Once successive investigative
exercises have been undertaken, the State is expected to demonstrate how the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/27/2026
11:07:59 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32476
28 MCRC-20454-2026
material discrepancies were addressed and what legally sustainable

conclusion ultimately emerged against the petitioner. In the absence of a
satisfactory explanation in the material placed before this Court, the
continued reliance upon disputed investigative conclusions, without
demonstrating a definitive and legally sustainable outcome despite the
passage of several years, weighs in favour of exercising the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court.
41. The ballistic report must also be considered in its proper
evidentiary perspective. Though the report records certain comparisons
between fired cartridge cases and test-fired ammunition, it also notes that the
marks available on certain bullets were insufficient for a conclusive
identification of the firearm concerned. Significantly, the report, as placed
before this Court, does not by itself identify the petitioner as the person who
fired a particular weapon or establish his individual participation in the
alleged occurrence. The report is therefore neither wholly inconclusive nor
independently determinative of the petitioner's criminal liability. Similarly,
the affidavits relied upon by the petitioner raise questions concerning the
personal knowledge of certain deponents and the circumstances in which
some statements were allegedly recorded during the magisterial inquiry.
Those affidavits cannot, at this stage, be treated as conclusive proof that the
allegations are false; nevertheless, they are relevant to the overall assessment
of the reliability of the material relied upon in the petition. The Court is
conscious that an FIR need not contain the complete evidence required for
conviction and that disputed questions ordinarily belong to trial. However,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/27/2026
11:07:59 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32476
29 MCRC-20454-2026
where the proceedings have remained unresolved for an extraordinary period,

the investigative material is itself disputed, and the scientific evidence placed
before the Court does not independently connect the petitioner with the
alleged act, the State must demonstrate a sustainable basis for continuing the
process against him. The cumulative effect of these circumstances, rather
than any isolated document, is material to the present determination.
42. This Court is mindful that the allegations arise out of an incident
involving the deaths of four persons and that the gravity of the allegations
demands a careful and impartial examination. The seriousness of the
occurrence, however, cannot dispense with the requirement that the
investigation be fair, diligent and directed towards a lawful conclusion. Nor
can the alleged willingness of certain dependants to withdraw their
complaints or accept compensation be treated as a sufficient ground for
terminating proceedings concerning serious non-compoundable offences.
The petitioner's case must instead be assessed on the combined effect of the
prolonged investigative history, the absence of a conclusive findings over the
incident, the unresolved issues reflected in the successive reports, and the
limited extent to which the ballistic material individually connects him with
the alleged firing. Considered together, these circumstances raise a
substantial question as to whether continuation of the criminal process
against the petitioner, after such an extraordinary lapse of time and without a
satisfactorily demonstrated final investigative conclusion, remains consistent
with the constitutional requirement of fair procedure. The inherent power
under Section 528 of the BNSS, is not intended to adjudicate disputed
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/27/2026
11:07:59 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32476
30 MCRC-20454-2026
evidence as though this Court were conducting a trial; nevertheless, it exists

to prevent the process of law from being continued in circumstances where
its continuation would amount to an abuse of that process. Having regard to
the peculiar and cumulative circumstances emerging from the material placed
before this Court, the Court finds that interference is warranted to secure the
ends of justice and to prevent the petitioner from being subjected to
indefinite criminal uncertainty.
43. For the reasons discussed above, this Court finds that the petitioner
has raised substantial grounds concerning the prolonged pendency of the
investigation, the inconsistency between the inquiry and investigative
reports, the disputed circumstances surrounding certain witness statements,
and the absence of a conclusive individual attribution in the ballistic material
relied upon by the petitioner. The Court has not treated the alleged settlement
as an independent ground for quashing the proceedings. Nor has it accepted
the petitioner's contention under Section 197 of the CrPC as an automatic bar
to investigation. The legal effect of that provision remains governed by its
statutory conditions. The Court is conscious that the allegations relate to the
deaths of four persons during a police encounter and that the public interest
in a fair investigation is substantial. The exercise of inherent jurisdiction in
such a case must therefore be based upon a careful and cumulative
assessment, rather than upon any single circumstance. Having considered the
material placed before the Court and the submissions advanced by the parties
and particularly looking to the fact that the petitioner is facing ordeal of
incessant investigation without culmination into filing of charge sheet, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/27/2026
11:07:59 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32476
31 MCRC-20454-2026
Court is satisfied that the continuation of the impugned proceedings against

the petitioner, warrants interference in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction,
subject to the findings recorded herein and the limits imposed by law.
44. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The FIR registered
as Crime No. 111/2010 at Police Station Tentra, District Morena, for the
offences punishable under Sections 307 and 34 of the IPC, Sections 25 and
27 of the Arms Act, and Sections 11 and 13 of the M.P.D.V.P.K. Act, and
added Sections 302, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and the consequential criminal
proceedings arising therefrom, insofar as they relate to the present petitioner ,
are hereby quashed.
45. It is clarified that this order does not adjudicate upon the guilt or
innocence of any other person allegedly associated with the incident. The
observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the present
petition and only in respect of the present petitioner.
46. It is further clarified that this Court has not expressed any
expressed any opinion on the investigating agency and authorities.
47. The petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly.

(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
Vishal

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 10/27/2026
11:07:59 AM