Madhya Pradesh High Court
Harita Sunil Parab vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11486
1 WP-11646-2026
10.6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
ON THE 24th OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 11646 of 2026
HARITA SUNIL PARAB
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Petitioner - Ms. Harita Sunil Pared is present in person.
Shri Surendra Gupta, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for following reliefs :-
10. RELIEF PRAYED FOR :-
10.1 Re-open the case no. Summary Case 6652/11/2017. 10.2 Declare the proceedings conducted under coercion are null and void.
1 0 . 3 Transfer the case to an independent and impartial court,Initiate disciplinary and legal action against Respondent No. 3.
10.4 Conduct the Direct inquiry to the police misconduct,Grant protection to the Petitioner's against coercive action.
10.5 Grant compensation from Respondent No. 3 & no.4 compensation for heavy financial loss, mental trauma, and to create threat and fear in petitioner's mind, physical harassment, i.e.; exertion, Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREETHA NAIR Signing time: 27-04-2026 18:54:30 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11486
2 WP-11646-2026 wasting time of the petitioner's who is advocate as judge himself not being present in the court on dated 2nd March inspite of judge himself giving date on 2nd March to the petitioner through NBW send by Ratlam police. Due to which the petitioner has to stay long in Ratlam and Indore foe further dates and in emergency to rush --Ratlam Court from Mumbai. | 10.6 During the argument the petitioner will bring more facts and injustice on record face by the petitioner from Ratlam Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, who has appeared as party in person and is also a practicing advocate at Mumbai Court.
The petitioner - party in person submits that the petitioner is residing at Mumbai. There is a complaint filed by the Ticket Collector against the present petitioner and pursuant to that, she has to attend the proceedings before the Special Railway Magistrate, Ratlam(M.P.). She has submitted that she has attended all the proceedings and by referring to Annexure-P/1, which are the proceedings before the learned Magistrate, she has submitted that the earlier Magistrate, who is conducting the proceeding, is kind enough to give accommodation to the present petitioner being a lady and residing at Mumbai where the distance between Ratlam and Mumbai is more than 600 Kms. He has given all the accommodation to petitioner by permitting her to present through video conferencing as well as by sending the WhatsApp messages regarding any further development in the proceedings. Thereafter, she submitted that, for reasons known only to the current Presiding Officer, she was not permitted to appear via video conferencing. She further alleged that the Presiding Officer had previously insisted her to plead guilty, given that the amount involved is only Rs. 4,000/-. The Petitioner submits that she Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREETHA NAIR Signing time: 27-04-2026 18:54:30 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11486 3 WP-11646-2026 could not attend the proceedings due to a death in her family. Although she engaged an advocate from Indore, he was also unable to appear before the concerned Court, resulting in the issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) in a matter involving only Rs. 4,000/-. She further contends that, as a woman and a practicing advocate primarily based in Mumbai, she faces significant hardship in traveling alone to Ratlam for every hearing. She asserts that on 09.03.2026, she pleaded guilty only due to the insistence of the Presiding Officer. She claims her consent was obtained under duress and coercion, and she now seeks to reopen the case as she does not accept the order dated 09.03.2026. When queried by the Court regarding her allegations against the Judicial Officer, she stated that while she has no personal animosity, the officer's actions were malafide and arbitrary. Given the totality of these facts, she submits that the order passed on 09.03.2026 is illegal and should be set aside to ensure a fair trial."
3. Counsel for the respondent/State vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that present petition is itself is not maintainable as by order dated 09.03.2026, the Court has passed order which reads as under :-
09.03.2026 ''अिभयोजन ारा ी मौय पी पी।
करण आरोपीगण ह रता एवं सुनील ब ा क उप थती हे तु िनयत ह आरोपीगण ह रता 429 एवं सुजीव ब ा वयं उप थत।
अिभयु गण को याियक अिभर ा म िलया गया।
इसी म पर अिभयु गण ने य कया गया क आरोपीगण अपना प समथन वयं करना चाहते है । इसके अित र उनके ारा इस म पर यह भी य कया गया क वे वे छा एवं बना कसी डर, दबाव व लोभ के अपराध वीकार करना चाहते है ।
करण का अवलोकन कया गया।
करण अपराध ववरण हे तु िनयत कया जाता है ।
करण अपराध ववरण हे तु दोपहर प ात तुत हो।
(अतुल यादव)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 27-04-2026
18:54:30
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11486
4 WP-11646-2026
पेशल रे लवे म ज ेट
रतलाम (म. .)
पुन: -
अिभयोजन ारा ी मौय पी पी।
आरोपीगण ह रता एव सुनील ब ा वयं उप थत।
करण अपराध ववरण हे तु िनयत है
करण का अवलोकन कया गया।
करण के अवलोकन से अिभयु गण के व थम या रे लवे अिधिनयम क धारा
145(बी), 146 एवं 137 के तहत अपराध कया जाना तीत होने से उपरो धाराओं के
तहत अपराध ववरण तैयार कर सुनाया व समझाया गया तथा अिभयु गण का अिभवाकर अं कत कया गया, जसम अिभयु गण के ारा अिभयोजन क ओर से तुत द तावेज क स यता को धारा 330 बी.एन.एस.एस. के तहत वीकार कर, अपराध कया जाना वीकार कया गया। अत: करण अिभयु गण क वीकारो क आधार पर िनणय हे तु कुछ समय प ात पेश हो।
(अतुल यादव)
पेशल रे लवे म ज ेट
रतलाम (म. .)
पुन :-
करण म िनणय पृथक से टं कत एवं ह ता रत कया जाकर अिभयु गण को िनणय अनुसार रे लवे अिधिनयम क धारा 145(बी), 146 एवं 137 के तहत िस दोष कया जाता है । अत: अिभयु गण को रे ल अिधिनयम क धारा 145(बी) म यायालय उठने तक कारावास एवं 500/- पये क अथद ड से तथा धारा 146 म पये 500-500 एवं रे ल अिधिनयम क धारा 137 म पये 500-500 के अथद ड से द डत कया जाता है । अथदं ड यित म क दशा म आरोपीगण को 15 के साधारण कारावास क सजा भुगताई जावे।
करण म ज शुदा स प अपील अविध प ात ् न क जावे।
करण कुछ समय प ात पेश हो।
(अतुल यादव)
पेशल रे लवे म ज ेट
रतलाम (म. .)
पुन :-
आदे शानुसार अथदं ड क रािश 1500-1500/- आनलाईन े जर चालान नंबर नंबर 004147 एवं 004162 पर जमा क गई।
अिभयु गण को अथद ड क रािश जमा कराये जाने पर यायालय से छोडा गया। करण का प रणाम दज कर िन हत समयाविध म अिभलेखागार भेजा जावे।
(अ
तुल यादव)
पेशल रे लवे म ज ेट
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 27-04-2026
18:54:30
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11486
5 WP-11646-2026
रतलाम (म. .)''
4. Learned counsel for the State further submitted by drawing attention of this Court towards the parties made in the proceedings, who are respondents. The name of the respondents are as under :
Respondent No.1 - State of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal Secretary Law & Legislative Affairs Department.
Respondent No.2 - Principle District & Sessions Judge, Ratlam Respondent No.3 - Special Railway Magistrate, Court No.52. Mr. Atul Yadav, Ratlam(M.P.) Respondent No.4 - Station House Officer(concerned police station) Choti Gwaltoli, Indore.
5. It is further submitted by the counsel for the State that it is surprising and shocking that the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ratlam, as well as Railway Magistrate Court No. 52, Mr. Atul Yadav, were impleaded as parties. Such a petition--filed by a person with sufficient knowledge of law who claims to be a practicing advocate in Mumbai-- should not be entertained. The Court should pass a harsh order against the petitioner for misusing the process of law as she is filing multiple proceedings by making reckless allegations against everyone. Given the inconsistent stand and conduct of the petitioner, counsel submits that no relief should be granted and the petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. I have considered the rival submissions of both parties. It is noted Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREETHA NAIR Signing time: 27-04-2026 18:54:30 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11486 6 WP-11646-2026 that respondent Nos. 2 and 3--the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Ratlam, and the Special Railway Magistrate, Court No. 52, Ratlam (Mr. Atul Yadav)--have been impleaded as parties. When the court questioned the petitioner on this, she clarified that she holds no personal grievance against the Judicial Officers. Rather, her grievance is against the Ticket Collector of railway, who allegedly misbehaved and registered a false case against her. To protect her self-respect, she wishes to contest the case on its merits and requests that the matter, which was closed after her guilty plea, be reopened. I have also considered the petitioner's arguments regarding the conduct of the Judicial Officer who passed the original order, as well as the supporting materials provided in the petition
7. Sub-para of Para-4, 8 and 9 of the petition is reproduced as under
:-
4. Subject matter in brief :-
The present petition is being filed by the Petitioner, a practicing advocate, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the |Constitution of India, against gross abuse of judicial power, coercion, and violation of fundamental rights. The Petitioner has been subjected to: Illegal issuance of Non - Bailable Warrant (NBW) in a petty matter (Rs.6000) Mental and physical harassment Denial of legal representation and Video Conferencing Coercion to plead guilty under fear of arrest Use of police force across states (Ratlam to Mumbai) The proceedings were forcibly concluded under threat, pressure, and coercion, thereby rendering them illegal and unconstitutional. The actions of the learned magistrate are arbitrary malafide and violative of Articles 14 and 21."
8. FACTS OF THE CASE :-
a. that ,the petitioner is a citizen of India and resident of Mumbai (M.H.) Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREETHA NAIR Signing time: 27-04-2026 18:54:30 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11486 7 WP-11646-2026 .and the Respondents no. 1 to 4 are the instrumentalities of the state and covered under article of the constitution of India and.therefore, they are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court.
b. That, the petitioner is an advocate and a law binding citizen who has been diligently pursuing her case bearing case no 8243 before court no 52 Indore.
c. That, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in a petty case involving an amount less than Rs.6000.
d. That ,the petitioner has Initially, the previous Magistrate adopted a fair and cooperative approach, allowing Video Conferencing and understanding the Petitioner's difficulties.
e. That, the petitioner, however, upon change of Magistrate to Respondent No. 3, the entire approach became hostile, coercive and oppressive. f. That, the petitioner has The Learned Magistrate: Ignored the presence of appointed counsel Refused Video Conferencing facilities Failed to communicate hearing dates Issued Non-Bailable Warrants without justification. The issuance of NBW in a petty matter is grossly disproportionate and illegal Police from Ratlam were sent to Mumbai to execute NBW, resulting in Physical assault Abuse and intimidation Attempt to forcibly detain the Petitioner.
g. That, the Petitioner was placed under extreme fear and coercion, and was compelled to sign documents against her will. The Learned Magistrate repeatedly pressured the Petitioner to: Admit guilt Pay fine Close the case. The Petitioner was undergoing severe personal distress, including a recent death in the family, which was completely ignored(3.11) on 02.03.2026, despite summoning the Petitioner, the Magistrate himself remained absent, exposing arbitrariness. h. That, the entire proceedings were conducted in a manner intended to break the will of the Petitioner and force submission. The case was ultimately closed not on merits but under coercion, rendering the proceedings null and void.
9. GROUNDS :- That, the petitioner submits that the impugned actions are illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional on the following ground.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREETHA NAIR Signing time: 27-04-2026 18:54:30NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11486 8 WP-11646-2026 a. Violation of Article 21 : The actions of the Respondents violate the Petitioner's fundamental right to life, dignity and personal liberty. Procedure must be just, fair and reasonable.
b. ILLEGAL ISSUANCE OF NBW: NBW issued in a petty case without exhausting alternatives is arbitrary. NBW must be used sparingly. c. Denial of Natural Justice: Failure to record Statement as per free consent.
d. Judicial Bias: Conduct indicating favoritism towards the accused. e. Mental Harassment & Financial Loss : Forcing repeated travel and unnecessary presence.
8. Based on the averments in the petition and the order passed by the Judicial Officer, I find that the concerned Officer followed the prescribed legal procedure. It is not particularly material for a Judicial Officer to consider whether a party is a female advocate from Mumbai. While every Judicial Officer should certainly consider such aspects appropriately, they must not do so beyond the limits of providing reasonable accommodation to a party. The present case reveals that several dates were provided; however, it appears that the petitioner did not avail herself of the opportunities afforded by the legal process. Consequently, the Magistrate was required to issue a non-bailable warrant. It further appears that after pleading guilty--an act recorded by the Officer--the petitioner changed her mind. She filed this petition making improper and unjustified allegations against the Judicial Officer without providing specific supporting material, which does not merit appreciation. Notably, the petitioner exhibited similar behaviour before the trial court. This Court has also observed that the petitioner attempts to disrupt judicial proceedings and subsequently raises a "hue and cry" about alleged injustices. Such conduct is unacceptable, especially since the petitioner is a lawyer who is well aware of legal provisions and procedures. Moreover, the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREETHA NAIR Signing time: 27-04-2026 18:54:30 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11486 9 WP-11646-2026 petitioner is now estopped from raising these disputes, as the Judicial Officer passed a detailed order after recording her consent to the guilty plea. It is not open to the petitioner to challenge that order by engaging in a blame game against the Judicial Officer; such attempts should be considered with gravity.
9. Considering the overall aspects of the matter, in view of above discussions and the fact that none of the allegations in the petition are supported by cogent or convincing material, the petitioner has filed this petition based on reckless allegations that are unacceptable in the eyes of law. For these reasons, and without further comment on the petitioner's conduct, the Court finds the petition meritless and views it as an attempt to pressurize the Judicial Officer--a practice that must be deprecated. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The Court refrains from imposing costs, noting that the petitioner is a female advocate from Mumbai whose actions likely stem from frustration and an attempt to evade the consequences of previously adjudicated proceedings.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT) JUDGE pn Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREETHA NAIR Signing time: 27-04-2026 18:54:30 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11486 10 WP-11646-2026 Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREETHA NAIR Signing time: 27-04-2026 18:54:30