Petition to quash FIR is non-maintainable without impleading the complainant as a necessary party-respondent.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking to quash FIR No. 682 of 2025, the resulting charge-sheet dated 04.02.2026, and the cognizance order dated 24.02.2026

The proceedings involved offences under Sections 191(2), 221, 296, 324(1), 343, and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with provisions of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, and the Madhya Pradesh Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1994

At the hearing, the State raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner had failed to implead the complainant, Dr. Vinay Sharma, who was a necessary party for the adjudication of the case

1. Whether the petition to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings is maintainable without impleading the original complainant as a party-respondent?

2. Whether the court should grant liberty to file a fresh petition upon withdrawal of the current defective petition?

The court applied the procedural requirement of impleading "necessary parties," holding that in a petition to quash an FIR, the complainant is a necessary party for proper adjudication

The court further exercised its discretionary power to allow withdrawal with liberty to refile, while invoking its authority to impose costs for procedural negligence or filing in a "casual manner"

The court found that the petitioner’s failure to implead Dr. Vinay Sharma—the individual on whose complaint the FIR was based—rendered the petition procedurally deficient, as a proper adjudication could not occur in his absence

The court noted that the petition had been filed in a "casual manner"

Upon the petitioner's request to withdraw the matter to rectify this defect, the court granted liberty to file a fresh petition

However, to discourage such procedural lapses, the court conditioned this liberty upon the payment of Rs. 1,000 as costs, directed to be transmitted to the Government Specialized Adoption Agency, Gariyaband

It granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh petition after impleading the complainant, subject to depositing Rs. 1,000 as costs before the Registry

The court also directed the return of certified copies of the FIR and charge-sheet to the petitioner upon the submission of photocopies for the record