Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 November, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29039
1 MCRC-36325-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 12th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 36325 of 2024
SANJAY YADAV AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Siddharth Sharma - Advocate for the applicants.
Shri Samar Ghuraiya - Public Prosecutor for the State.
Reserved on :- 12/11/2025
Delivered on :- 18/11/2025
ORDER
The present application has been preferred by the applicants under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking following reliefs:
"Thus, prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and the Order Impugned dated 09/08/2024 Annexure A and FIR no. 230/2024 under Section 294, 392, 395, 323 & 506 of IPC and Section 11 & 13 of the M.P. Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 at Police Station Mau, Bhind (M.P.) may kindly be quashed in the interest of justice."
Short facts of the case are that the complainant, Rajeev Kushwah, son of Shri Govind Kushwah, resident of Ward No.12, Kasba Mohalla, Gohad, NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29039 2 MCRC-36325-2024 District Bhind, had purchased a land bearing Survey No.290 situated at Village Kheriyajallu, where he constructed an office and a weighbridge (Dharamkanta). In this office, 15 bags of urea fertilizer and 2 bags of mustard seeds were stored for agricultural purposes. On the night of 16-17 March 2024, at about 9:00 PM, while the complainant was returning home from Siyodha village with his brothers Rakesh and Rajnesh, he saw the the present applications No.1 and 2, namely, Sanjay Yadav and Mohan Yadav, sons of Gyasiram Yadav, along with two unknown companions, standing armed outside the boundary wall of his weighbridge premises. When the complainant asked them what they were doing there, Sanjay Yadav (applicant No.1) replied that the weighbridge and the land now belonged to them and threatened that if the complainant did not leave, they would kill him and bury him in the ground. Sanjay Yadav (applicant No.1) loaded his gun and warned him never to come near the weighbridge again. Thereafter, Mohan Yadav, Sanjay Yadav (applicants No.1 & 2), and their two unknown associates abused the complainant and his brothers in filthy language, pointed their 12-bore guns at them, and ordered them to run away. Out of fear, the complainant and his brothers fled the spot and returned home. The next morning, when the complainant went to the weighbridge with his brothers, they found the office broken open, and on checking inside, 15 bags of urea fertilizer and 2 bags of mustard seeds were missing. The complainant alleged that the theft was committed by the same accused persons along with their unknown accomplices. The complainant submitted a written report on 17 March 2024 to the Station House Officer, Police Station Gohad, but no NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29039 3 MCRC-36325-2024 action was taken. Subsequently, on 27 March 2024, he submitted another written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, District Bhind, yet still no action was taken. Therefore, the complainant was compelled to file a private complaint under Section 156(3) of CrPC before the learned Trial Court against the accused persons under Sections 294, 392, 395, 323, 506-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 11/13 of the MPDVPK Act, which was allowed vide order dated 09.08.2024 with a direction to the Police Station Gohad that on the basis of the complaint, an FIR be registered, the matter be investigated, and after completion of the investigation, a final report be submitted to the Court. In compliance of the order dated 09.08.2024, the Police had lodged FIR bearing Crime No.230 of 2024 against the petitioners and other two unknown persons for the offence under Sections 294, 392, 395, 323, 506-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 11/13 of the MPDVPK Act. Hence, the present application.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted before this Court that the present application has been preferred for quashment of FIR No. 230/2024 and all consequential proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No.P/010171/2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 392, 395, 323, 506-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 11 and 13 of the M.P. Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981. The order dated 09/08/2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (Dacoity), Gohad, District Bhind, directing registration of the case under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., is assailed as being mechanical, arbitrary and passed without judicial application of mind.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29039 4 MCRC-36325-2024 It is further submitted that the complainant/respondent No.2, had alleged that on the night of 16-17 March 2024, the applicants along with two unknown persons threatened him and removed certain bags of urea and mustard from his alleged weighbridge premises. The learned trial court, without examining the substance of the complaint or the accompanying documents, mechanically directed registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is significant that in the complaint itself, there was only a prayer for return of goods, not for initiation of criminal prosecution. Despite this, the learned court, without perusing the complaint in proper perspective, proceeded to issue the impugned direction for registration of the case.
It is further submitted that the FIR has been registered merely on the complaint of respondent no.2 without following the mandatory procedure prescribed by law as there was no prior approach by the complainant to the Police Station or the Superintendent of Police before filing the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Therefore, the order under challenge suffers from serious legal infirmity.
It is further submitted that the complainant has also failed to produce any credible material to show his ownership or possession of the property in question. The alleged Dharamkata and office premises are not shown in his name and no documents have been filed to prove that the property belongs to him or the goods alleged to have been stolen were ever stored there. Without such material proof, the registration of an FIR for serious offences like robbery and dacoity is wholly unjustified and contrary to settled principles of criminal law.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29039 5 MCRC-36325-2024 It is further submitted that the applicants have produced documentary evidence establishing lawful ownership and transfer of the property and the property was sold by applicant no.2, Mohan Yadav, to applicant no.1, Sanjay Yadav, through a registered sale deed dated 12/12/2023. Thereafter, applicant no.1 transferred the same property to one Hameer Singh by a registered sale deed dated 01/03/2024. All necessary permissions for the Dharamkata are recorded in the name of applicant no. 2. Hence, it is clear that the property lawfully belongs to the applicants, and the registration of the criminal case against them is legally untenable. Furthermore, the complainant has not filed any receipt, bill, or record showing purchase of urea or mustard, nor has he produced any document to substantiate that such goods were ever in his possession. The survey number in question is recorded as agricultural land and not commercial land meant for a Dharamkata. Therefore, the allegations of theft and misappropriation are baseless and unsupported by any evidence.
It is also relevant that the complainant himself has instituted a civil suit seeking declaration of ownership and injunction with respect to Survey No.290, challenging the sale deeds executed by the applicants. The very reliefs sought in the civil suit -- declaration of ownership, nullification of sale deeds, and injunction -- demonstrate that the entire controversy is of a civil nature pertaining to title, possession, and ownership of immovable property. The complainant, having already invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, has maliciously sought to convert this civil dispute into a criminal prosecution only to pressurize and harass the applicants. NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29039 6 MCRC-36325-2024 It is further submitted that when the complainant himself attempted to forcibly break the lock of the Dharamkata, a Dial-100 call was made by the applicants, and the police reached the spot, seizing the blade and lock. Thereafter, the complainant filed the present application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned trial court. It may also be noted that the purchaser, Hameer Singh, had inaugurated the Dharamkata on 14/03/2024, and religious rituals (puja) were performed in the premises. These facts clearly indicate that the complainant was not in possession and that the entire prosecution case is an afterthought.
It is further submitted that the dispute regarding ownership or possession of immovable property is essentially a civil matter that can only be adjudicated by the civil court and the complainant's attempt to give a criminal color to a civil dispute amounts to gross misuse of the criminal justice process. The Apex Court has repeatedly held that criminal law should not be used to settle civil disputes. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 AIR SCW 237, the Apex Court laid down illustrative categories where quashing is justified, including cases where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not constitute an offence, or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide intention and amount to abuse of the process of the court. The present case falls squarely within these categories.
It is further submitted that the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 392 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code are not made out, as it is well settled that for an offence under Section 392 IPC (robbery), there NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29039 7 MCRC-36325-2024 must be specific allegations of theft preceded, accompanied, or followed by violence or threat of instant violence for the purpose of committing such theft. Likewise, for constituting an offence under Section 395 IPC (dacoity), it is essential that the act must have been committed by five or more persons conjointly. In the present case, the complainant has only vaguely alleged the presence of the applicants along with "two unknown persons," making the total number of alleged assailants merely four, which falls short of the statutory requirement of Section 395. Furthermore, the allegations do not disclose the essential ingredients of robbery as defined under Section 390 IPC and appear to arise from a civil dispute relating to possession of immovable property rather than any act amounting to robbery or dacoity.
It is further submitted that the learned Special Judge has mechanically passed the impugned order without examining the complaint or satisfying the prerequisites of law and there was no material to support registration of the case; no ownership proof, no proof of purchase of goods, and no evidence connecting the applicants to the alleged offences. The entire prosecution is based on conjecture and motivated allegations arising out of personal and property rivalry. The continuation of such proceedings would amount to harassment and abuse of the process of law.
In view of the above submissions, it is prayed that the present application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., be allowed and the impugned order dated 09/08/2024 and consequent FIR No.230/2024 registered at Police Station Mao, District Bhind, for the offences under Sections 294, 392, 395, 323, 506-B of the IPC and Sections 11 and 13 of the M.P. Dakaiti Aur NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29039 8 MCRC-36325-2024 Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 be quashed.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the application and has prayed for its rejection by submitting that the impugned order dated 09/08/2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (Dacoity), Gohad, District Bhind, directing registration of the case under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., is based on a prima facie satisfaction that the complaint discloses commission of cognizable offences. The allegations made by the complainant, if taken at face value, reveal that the applicants along with others unlawfully threatened the complainant, trespassed upon his premises, and misappropriated property belonging to him, which constitute cognizable offences under Sections 294, 392, 395, 323, 506-B IPC and Sections 11/13 of the M.P. Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981. At this preliminary stage, the Court is not required to examine the probative value of the material or to weigh the sufficiency of evidence; the investigation must be permitted to proceed unhindered. It is further submitted that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly and in the rarest of rare cases where the allegations do not disclose any offence or where proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides, but in the present matter, the FIR has been registered pursuant to a judicial order and there exist specific factual allegations which require investigation. The questions relating to ownership of property or genuineness of sale deeds are matters of evidence that can be properly determined only after investigation and, if necessary, during trial.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29039 9 MCRC-36325-2024 Upon careful consideration of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and after perusal of the record, this Court finds that the present case arises essentially out of a dispute concerning ownership and possession of immovable property. The complainant and the applicants are admittedly at loggerheads over the title and possession of a piece of land on which a Dharamkata (weighbridge) is situated. It is also undisputed that a civil suit seeking declaration of title and injunction with respect to the same property is already pending before the competent civil court.
From the allegations in the complaint, it appears that the gravamen of the charge relates to alleged breaking of locks and removal of certain bags of urea and mustard from the disputed Dharamkata premises and the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 09/08/2024, had directed registration of the case for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 392, 395, 323, 506-B IPC and Sections 11/13 of the M.P. Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981. The applicants have questioned this order primarily on the ground that the provisions of the special Act have been invoked mechanically and without there being any factual foundation for their applicability.
On perusal of the material and the nature of allegations, this Court finds substantial force in the contention raised by learned counsel for the applicants that the ingredients necessary to constitute an offence under Sections 11 and 13 of the M.P. Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 are wholly absent in the present case, as the said NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29039 10 MCRC-36325-2024 provisions apply only to offences committed in a notified dacoity-affected area and that too when such offences have a nexus with acts of dacoity or by dacoit gangs. There is nothing on record to suggest that the incident alleged by the complainant was committed by any gang or it was connected with any act of dacoity as contemplated under the said Act. The dispute, at best, appears to be an inter-se property dispute between private individuals, which cannot attract the provisions of this special legislation meant to curb organized dacoity-related crimes.
It is well settled that the penal provisions of special statutes like the M.P. Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam cannot be invoked in a routine or casual manner, as there must be clear and specific allegations bringing the case within the four corners of the special Act. and the absence of such material renders the application of the said Act unsustainable in law. In view thereof, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the applicants under Sections 11 and 13 of the said Act would amount to abuse of the process of law and therefore, deserves to be quashed.
Apart from the offences under the M.P. Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 392 and 395 of the IPC are also not made out from bare reading of the complaint or the material placed before the learned Trial Court, as it is well settled that for an offence under Section 392 IPC (robbery), there must be clear allegations of theft preceded, accompanied, or followed by violence or threat of instant violence for the purpose of NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29039 11 MCRC-36325-2024 committing theft or carrying away the stolen property. Likewise, for constituting an offence under Section 395 IPC (dacoity), it is essential that the alleged act must have been committed by five or more persons, and the complaint must prima facie reflect the necessary ingredients of robbery committed conjointly. In the present case, the complainant has vaguely alleged the presence of the applicants along with "two unknown persons,"
making the total number of alleged assailants only four, which falls short of the mandatory statutory requirement of Section 395 IPC. Moreover, the allegations do not reveal the essential elements of robbery as defined under Section 390 IPC, nor do they disclose that any violence or threat was used for the purpose of committing theft or for carrying away any property. The allegations, at their highest, disclose a dispute over possession of immovable property, and the alleged removal of goods--if assumed to be true--appears intrinsically connected with the underlying civil dispute and not with any act amounting to robbery or dacoity in the legal sense.
Thus, the invocation of Sections 392 and 395 IPC appears to have been made mechanically and without any factual foundation. Continuation of proceedings for these offences would therefore amount to abuse of the process of law, attracting the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 (supra).
Accordingly, the application is partly allowed and FIR bearing Crime No.230/2024, registered at Police Station Mau, District Bhind (M.P.), and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed to the extent of the offences under Sections 11 and 13 of the M.P. Dakaiti Aur NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29039
12 MCRC-36325-2024 Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981, and Sections 392 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The investigation and further proceedings shall continue only in respect of the remaining offences under Sections 294, 323 and 506-B IPC, strictly in accordance with law.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the remaining allegations, and the investigating agency shall be free to conduct a fair, impartial and expeditious investigation. The trial Court shall proceed in accordance with law uninfluenced by any observations made herein.
With the aforesaid observation, the application stands partly allowed. No order as to costs.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE pwn* Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR, 2.5.4.20=b864d1ab4ace2215bfcf3ab301c34d631287f1b1cdd90b4a49f265f0 2d9d593f, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR,CID
- 7064434, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=61b9d129971d2ea4fd4455ed49ea436ea65e26164beeed8915 3191c56e98ce21, cn=PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2025.11.19 11:56:39 +05'30'