Madhya Pradesh High Court
Alka Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 February, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5266
1 WP-27928-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 9 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 27928 of 2025
ALKA JAIN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sankalp Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner [P-1].
Shri Shailendra Singh Kushwah Ga appearing on behalf of Advocate
General[r-1].
ORDER
This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashment of the order dated 09.05.2025 passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guna, as well as the consequential criminal proceedings arising out of Crime No. 115/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Guna, District Guna (M.P.), for offences punishable under Sections 103 and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she was married to Anupam Jain on 01.06.2006. Her husband is presently working as an Auditor in HDFC Bank, Bhopal. From the said marriage, they were blessed with one son, Master Abhyuday, who was born on 01.02.2011. On 22.11.2019, the husband of the petitioner was transferred to HDFC Bank (WBO), Guna. Due to this transfer, the petitioner and her minor son started Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 24-02-2026 18:47:20 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5266 2 WP-27928-2025 residing in Guna along with him. Recently, her husband was re-transferred to Bhopal, and the family had planned to shift back to Bhopal after completion of Master Abhyuday's 8th standard academic session. Unfortunately, on 14.02.2025, the petitioner found her only son, Master Abhyuday, aged about 15 years, hanging in the bathroom of their residence. The petitioner was shocked and immediately arranged to take him to District Hospital, Guna. However, the doctors declared him dead on arrival. On the same day, i.e., 14.02.2025, on receiving information, the police registered a Marg No. 11/2025 at Police Station Kotwali, Guna. On 15.02.2025, the post-mortem examination of the deceased was conducted. As per the opinion of the medical board, the cause of death was asphyxia due to ante-mortem strangulation. Based on the inquest report and medical opinion, an FIR was registered on 22.02.2025 at Crime No. 115/2025 under Section 103 of the BNS, 2023, against unknown persons.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer named the petitioner as an accused in the case and took her into custody on 08.03.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court for grant of bail. Vide order dated 16.06.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 22254/2025, this Court was pleased to grant regular bail to the petitioner. Meanwhile, by order dated 29.03.2025, the Superintendent of Police, Guna constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT), headed by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Guna, to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation into the matter. On 26.04.2025, the SIT submitted its detailed report to the Superintendent of Police, Guna. The report, after Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 24-02-2026 18:47:20 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5266 3 WP-27928-2025 approval and forwarding by the Inspector General of Police, Gwalior Zone, clearly stated that no case whatsoever is made out against the petitioner. Thereafter, vide letter dated 02.05.2025, the Superintendent of Police, Guna approved the findings of the SIT and granted permission to file a Final Report stating that no case is made out against the petitioner. Accordingly, the Investigating Officer filed the Final Report before the competent criminal court, concluding that no sufficient evidence was found against the petitioner. The Investigating Officer also filed an application under Section 189 of the BNSS seeking release/discharge of the petitioner on the ground that no sufficient evidence was available against her. However, the said application was rejected vide order dated 01.05.2025. Thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guna, vide impugned order dated 09.05.2025, rejected the investigation report and took cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 103 and 238 of the BNSS, 2023, despite there being no evidence available on record against her. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the impugned order and the continuation of criminal proceedings despite her exoneration in the SIT report and Final Report, has filed the present petition before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has suffered the tragic and irreparable loss of her only child. Arraigning her as an accused in such a serious offence, without any cogent material or prima facie evidence, is wholly unjust and inhuman. It has been argued that the post- mortem report dated 15.02.2025 mentions the cause of death as "asphyxia due to ante-mortem strangulation." However, there is no direct evidence Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 24-02-2026 18:47:20 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5266 4 WP-27928-2025 connecting the petitioner to the alleged offence. The entire case is based on suspicion and circumstantial evidence. It is settled law that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. The Superintendent of Police, Guna constituted a Special Investigation Team to ensure a fair and impartial investigation. The SIT, headed by the Additional Superintendent of Police, conducted a detailed and independent investigation. After examining all aspects of the case, the SIT clearly concluded that no case whatsoever is made out against the petitioner. The SIT report dated 26.04.2025 was duly approved by the Inspector General of Police, Gwalior Zone, and thereafter by the Superintendent of Police, Guna. The Superintendent of Police granted express permission to file a Final Report stating that no offence is made out against the petitioner. Thus, the highest investigating authorities found the petitioner innocent. It has been argued that in pursuance of the approval, the Investigating Officer filed a Final Report before the competent criminal court stating that no sufficient evidence was found against the petitioner. The Investigating Officer also filed an application under Section 189 of the BNSS seeking discharge/release of the petitioner. This clearly shows that the investigating agency itself found no material to proceed against her. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 09.05.2025, rejected the Final Report and took cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 103 and 238 of the BNSS, 2023. The learned CJM failed to assign proper and legally sustainable reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the SIT and superior police authorities. It has been argued that there is not even an iota of evidence on record to establish the involvement of the petitioner. The Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 24-02-2026 18:47:20 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5266 5 WP-27928-2025 essential ingredients of offences under Sections 103 and 238 of the BNSS, 2023 are not satisfied. In absence of any direct or circumstantial evidence, taking cognizance is illegal and unsustainable. To bolster his submission learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgement passed by the Apex Court in the case of Rashmi Kumar Vs. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, JT 1996 (11) SC 175, Popular Muthiah Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, AIRONLINE 2006 SC 342 and High Court of State of Telangana in the case of Grandhe Devleopers Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. State of Telangana, 2025 (3) ALD (Cri.) 399 and argued that the impugned order dated 09.05.2025 passed by the learned CJM, Guna, taking cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 103 and 238 of the BNSS, 2023, is liable to be set aside.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.05.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guna, whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections 103 and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate has exercised the jurisdiction vested in him under law after considering the entire material available on record. It is further submitted that FIR bearing Crime No. 115/2025 was initially registered at Police Station Kotwali, Guna, District Guna (M.P.) under Section 103 of BNS against unknown persons. During investigation, the Investigating Officer collected material and implicated the petitioner as an accused. Thereafter, on a complaint made by the husband of the petitioner to the Police Headquarters, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 24-02-2026 18:47:20 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5266 6 WP-27928-2025 by the Superintendent of Police, Guna vide order dated 17.02.2025. Subsequently, on directions of the Inspector General of Police, Gwalior Zone, a modified SIT was constituted on 29.03.2025. The SIT conducted a thorough investigation under the supervision of senior officers and opined that no offence was made out against the petitioner. The findings of the SIT were approved by the Superintendent of Police, Guna, the Deputy Inspector General, Gwalior Range, and the Inspector General of Police, Gwalior Zone. Thereafter, permission was granted on 02.05.2025 to file an expunction report before the competent Court stating that no offence was committed by the petitioner. The said report was accordingly submitted before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guna. It is argued that all materials, including the expunction report, were placed before the learned Magistrate. After considering the same, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance in accordance with law. The order taking cognizance is a judicial order passed by a competent Court and can be challenged only in accordance with law before the appropriate forum and prayed that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. In the case of Popular Muthiah vs. State represented by Inspector of Police (supra), it has been held in paragraph 34 as under:
34. We have noticed hereinbefore that the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate in the matter of issuance of process or taking of cognizance depends upon existence of conditions precedent therefor. The Magistrate has jurisdiction in the event a final form is filed (i) to accept the final form; (ii) in the event a protest Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 24-02-2026 18:47:20 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5266 7 WP-27928-2025 petition is filed to treat the same as a complaint petition and if a prima facie case is made out, to issue processes; (iii) to take cognizance of the offences against a person, although a final form has been filed by the police, in the event he comes to the opinion that sufficient materials exist in the case diary itself therefor; and
(iv) to direct re- investigation into the matter. [See Abhinandan Jha and Others v. Dinesh Mishra , AIR 1968 SC 117, see also Minu Kumari and Anr. v. The State of Bihar and Ors., 2006 (4) SCALE 329].
8. In the case of Rashmi Kumar vs. Mahesh Kumar Bhada (supra) , it has been held in paragraph 15 as under:
15. The next question is; whether the appellant has made out any prima facie case of entrustment in that behalf? A reading of the complaint clearly indicates that her parents entrusted the property to the respondent at the time of her farewell from her parents house in Lucknow. They lived together in matrimonial home in Deli. Three children were born from the wedlock and during that period she had retained the custody of the property. When she left the matrimonial home she had not taken the property with her. She has specifically averred that when she went in October 1978 to Cochin requesting the respondent-husband to take her into matrimonial home along with the children, he promised to take her in the conjugal society and also that he would return the jewellery to her subject to the condition that she should withdraw her application filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights and accordingly she had withdrawn the application. The learned Single Judge failed to correctly appreciate her evidence recorded under Section 200 of the Code that she made a demand for return of the jewellery and household goods. On the other hand, a fair reading of it would indicate that when she met the respondent in Cochin and requested to take her Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 24-02-2026 18:47:20 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5266
8 WP-27928-2025 and children to home he promised to do so on her withdrawing the case for restitution of conjugal rights. Threat the husband promised to return them but he did not keep up his promise. The sequences that followed were that she filed another case for restitution of conjugal rights and an application for maintenance and thereafter she filed the complaint under Section 406, IPC. A fair reading of the averments would clearly indicate that a prima facie case of entrustment of the jewellery and the household goods had been made out. The learned Judge was not right in jumping to the conclusion that the averments made by the respondent in the counter-affidavit disclosed that no entrustment was made of the jewellery, cash and household goods and other movables enumerated in Annexures I and II details of which are not material for our purpose. In the light of the above, we are of the view that a prima facie case of entrustment had been made out by the appellant as the stridhana properties were not returned to her by the husband. Obviously, therefore, the learned Magistrate, having taken cognizance of the offence, had issued process for appearance of the respondent. It is fairly settled legal position that at the time of taking cognisance of the offence, the Court has to consider only the averments made in the complaint or in the charge-sheet filed under Section 173, as the case may be. It was held in State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla [(1996) 8 SCC 164] that it is not open for the Court to sift or appreciate the evidence at that stage with reference to the material and come to the conclusion that no prima facie case is made out for proceeding further in the matter. It is equally settled law that it is open to the Court, before issuing the process, to record the evidence and on consideration of the averments made in the complaint and the evidence thus adduced, it is required to find out whether an offence has been made out. On finding that such an offence has been made out and after taking cognizance thereof, process would be issued to the respondent to take further steps in the matters. If it is a charge-sheet filed under Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 24-02-2026 18:47:20 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5266 9 WP-27928-2025 Section 173 of the Code, the facts stated by the prosecution in the charge-sheet, on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation, would disclose the offence for which cognisance would be taken by the court to proceed further in the matter. Thus it is not the province of the court at that stage to embark upon and sift the evidence to come to the conclusion whether offence has been made out or not. The learned Judge, therefore, was clearly in error in attempting to sift the evidence with reference to the averments made by the respondent in the counter-affidavit to find out whether or not offence punishable under Section 406, IPC had been made out.
9. In the case of Grandhe Developers Pvt. Ltd. and others (supra), the High Court of the State of Telangana has held as under:
20. It is relevant to mention that in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sonu Gupta v. Deepak Gupta (2015) 3 SCC 424, it was held that at the stage of taking cognizance, the Magistrate is required only to see whether a prima facie case is made out and he is not required to evaluate the sufficiency of evidence or undertake a detailed inquiry into the merits. If the Magistrate, at the stage of cognizance, enters into analysis the evidence or evaluates the defence, it would amount to premature adjudication, which is impermissible in law.
21. It is pertinent to mention that in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v.
State of Maharashtra 10, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that at the stage of cognizance and summoning, the Magistrate is required only to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists for proceeding against the accused; (2015) 3 SCC 424) (2019) 14 SCC 350 he is not required to evaluate the merits or sufficiency of the material, nor to determine whether it would ultimately lead to conviction.
22. It is also relevant to mention that in State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta 11, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that at Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 24-02-2026 18:47:20 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5266 10 WP-27928-2025 the stage of cognizance on a police report, the Magistrate is only required to be satisfied that sufficient ground exists to proceed, and not to apply a strict standard of proof or consider possible defences. Interference by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction by examining merits at this nascent stage was erroneous. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Gujarat High Court was set aside and the Magistrate's order taking cognizance of the supplementary charge-sheet and issuing summons was restored, with a direction for the accused to appear and the trial to proceed in accordance with law.
23. In plethora of judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court specifically held that at the stage of taking cognizance, the Magistrate is only required to be satisfied that sufficient grounds exists for proceeding further and to see whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused and the Magistrate is not required to evaluate the sufficiency of evidence or undertake a detailed enquiry into the merits of the case, nor is it necessary to examine whether the material would ultimately result in conviction."
10. The legal position regarding the power of a Magistrate at the stage of taking cognizance is well settled. In Popular Muthiah v. State represented by Inspector of Police (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even when a final report is filed, the Magistrate has the jurisdiction to take cognizance if sufficient material exists in the case diary. Similarly, in Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada (supra) , it was held that at the stage of cognizance, the Court is required to consider whether a prima facie case is made out on the basis of the material available and is not to conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence. Further, in Sonu Gupta v. Deepak Gupta, Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra, and State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta, the Hon'ble Supreme Court consistently held Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 24-02-2026 18:47:20 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5266 11 WP-27928-2025 that at the stage of taking cognizance, the Magistrate is required only to ascertain whether sufficient ground exists to proceed and whether a prima facie case is made out. The Magistrate is not required to evaluate the sufficiency of evidence in detail, nor to consider whether the material would ultimately result in conviction.
11. At the same time, it is equally settled that the existence of a prima facie case is a condition precedent for taking cognizance. There must be some material on record which, if taken at face value, discloses the essential ingredients of the alleged offences.
12. In light of the above enunciations, the facts of the present case are now analyzed, it is not in dispute that the deceased, Master Abhyuday, aged about 15 years, was found hanging in the bathroom of his residence on 14.02.2025 and was declared dead on arrival at District Hospital, Guna. Initially, a Marg was registered and thereafter, on the basis of post-mortem opinion indicating "asphyxia due to ante-mortem strangulation," FIR bearing Crime No. 115/2025 was registered under Section 103 of the BNS against unknown persons. During investigation, the petitioner who is the mother of the deceased was implicated and taken into custody. Subsequently, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted by the Superintendent of Police, Guna, and later reconstituted on the directions of the Inspector General of Police, Gwalior Zone. The SIT conducted a detailed and supervised investigation. The final opinion of the SIT was that no offence was made out against the petitioner. The said opinion was approved by the Superintendent of Police, the Deputy Inspector General, and the Inspector General of Police, Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 24-02-2026 18:47:20 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5266 12 WP-27928-2025 Gwalior Zone. Thereafter, permission was granted to file a Final Report/Expunction Report before the competent Court, clearly stating that no sufficient evidence was available against the petitioner. It is also not disputed that the Investigating Officer filed a Final Report before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate along with an application under Section 189 of the BNSS seeking discharge of the petitioner. However, the learned Magistrate rejected the Final Report and took cognizance under Sections 103 and 238 of the BNSS.
13. Thus, this Court finds that the entire investigation conducted by a duly constituted SIT under the supervision of senior police officers culminated in a clear finding that no offence was made out against the petitioner. The Final Report categorically recorded that no sufficient evidence was available to proceed against the petitioner. There is no direct evidence on record connecting the petitioner with the alleged act. The prosecution case rests purely on suspicion and circumstantial aspects, without any specific material demonstrating the petitioner's involvement. The essential ingredients of Sections 103 and 238 of the BNSS have not been prima facie established against the petitioner from the material placed before the Court.
14. While it is true that a Magistrate is not bound by the opinion of the police and may take cognizance even after submission of a Final Report, such power must be exercised on the basis of material available in the case diary disclosing sufficient grounds to proceed. The order must reflect application of mind and indicate what material persuaded the Court to differ Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 24-02-2026 18:47:20 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5266 13 WP-27928-2025 from the investigating agency.
15. In the present matter, the impugned order dated 09.05.2025 does not disclose any specific material or reasoning demonstrating how a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner, particularly in the face of a detailed SIT report exonerating her. Upon careful consideration of the entire material available on record, it is evident that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court in para 13 are not sustainable in law and are based largely on assumptions and conjectures rather than cogent and reliable evidence. This Court finds that the learned Trial Court has relied upon certain alleged circumstantial evidence to raise suspicion against the petitioner. However, there is no substantive or reliable material on record to support such findings. The conclusions drawn are based on presumptions and not on legally admissible evidence.
(1) With regard to the finding arrived at in para 13.1 of the impugned order, concerning the circumstance that the deceased was last seen with the petitioner, who is his mother is not unnatural and mere "last seen" evidence, in the absence of any other corroborative material, is insufficient to establish culpability. The learned Trial Court has wrongly invoked the principle under Section 106 of the Evidence Act without first establishing a prima facie chain of circumstances.
(2) With regard to the finding arrived at in para 13.2 of the impugned order, concerning the alleged timing of death and the presence of the mother in the house, the same by itself does not conclusively establish involvement. The Trial Court has assumed guilt merely on the basis of presence, which is Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 24-02-2026 18:47:20 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5266 14 WP-27928-2025 not permissible in law without supporting evidence.
(3) With regard to the finding arrived at in para 13.3 of the impugned order, concerning the theory of hanging by use of a dupatta on a towel hanger, the Trial Court has expressed doubt on the possibility of suicide based on height and physical circumstances. However, such observations are purely speculative in nature and are not supported by any expert or scientific evidence. The finding is thus based on assumption rather than proof. Similarly, the observation regarding the cutting of the ligature material (dupatta and cloth tied to the legs) and its appearance in photographs has been treated as suspicious by the Trial Court in para 13.4 of the impugned order. However, no forensic or expert evidence has been relied upon to substantiate such suspicion. The conclusion drawn is therefore conjectural.
(4) With regard to the finding of the learned Trial Court in para 13.5 of the impugned order concerning the sequence of events in which the mother allegedly saw the deceased hanging in the bathroom and thereafter cut the ligature material within a short span of two to three minutes, it is observed that the said finding is not supported by any cogent material on record. The Trial Court has raised suspicion based on the perceived improbability of the acts being carried out within such a short time. However, no scientific, medical, or forensic evidence has been brought rather is on record to substantiate such an inference. Further, the observation regarding the absence of the dupatta on the hanger in the photographs and the assumption that it must have been untied within the said time frame is purely conjectural. The learned Trial Court has not relied upon any direct or Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 24-02-2026 18:47:20 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5266 15 WP-27928-2025 expert evidence to establish this sequence conclusively. In the absence of any reliable and corroborative material, the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court appears to be based merely on assumptions and surmises, and therefore, the same cannot be sustained in law.
(5) With regard to the finding of the learned Trial Court in para 13.6 of the impugned order concerning the issue of the flat's key, it is observed that the Trial Court has treated the act of the mother in identifying and using the duplicate key as suspicious. However, such a conclusion is not supported by any substantive evidence on record. The inference drawn by the Trial Court that it would be improbable to identify the correct key within a short time without trial and that the mother might have already been in possession of another key is purely speculative in nature that too when the landlady (Neha Jain) in her 161 statement had specifically stated that the petitioner after identifying the key from the bunch, had taken it to open the lock. No material evidence has been brought on record to establish that the petitioner had prior possession of an additional key or that the version given by the witnesses is false. In the absence of any direct, circumstantial, or expert evidence supporting such suspicion, the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court is based solely on assumptions and conjectures.
(6) With regard to the finding of the learned Trial Court in para 13.7 of the impugned order concerning the seizure of the deceased's notebook, it is observed that the Trial Court has treated the existence of certain writings on the last pages and the presence of a torn page as a suspicious circumstance. However, no material evidence has been brought on record to Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 24-02-2026 18:47:20 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5266 16 WP-27928-2025 establish the contents, authorship, or relevance of such writings to the alleged incident. Further, the mere presence of a torn page in the notebook, without any supporting evidence as to who removed it or for what purpose, cannot by itself give rise to an adverse inference. The conclusion drawn by the learned Trial Court in this regard is based purely on assumption and lacks evidentiary support.
(7) With regard to the finding of the learned Trial Court in para 13.8 of the impugned order concerning the conduct of the deceased's relatives in visiting the school and examining the answer sheet on the next day of the incident, it is observed that the Trial Court has treated such conduct as suspicious. However, this inference is not supported by any cogent material on record. The conclusion drawn is based on subjective assessment of human behavior, which may vary from person to person and cannot be uniformly applied. Merely because such conduct appears unusual in the ordinary course does not, by itself, establish any incriminating circumstance in the absence of supporting evidence. In the absence of any direct or corroborative material linking such conduct to the alleged offence, the finding of the learned Trial Court is based on assumption and conjecture.
(8) With regard to the finding of the learned Trial Court in para 13.9 of the impugned order concerning the seized mobile call details, CCTV footage, and pen drive, it is observed that although these materials have been referred to, no specific or incriminating content has been identified or established on record.
(9) With regard to the finding of the learned Trial Court in para 13.10 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 24-02-2026 18:47:20 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5266 17 WP-27928-2025 of the impugned order showing concern and doubt over the alleged weak academic performance and depression of the deceased as a reason for committing suicide, it is observed that from the material available on record and the academic records of the deceased, i.e. the mark sheets of Classes V, VI, and VII, which indicates that he had secured 89.5%, 78%, and 64.7% respectively, which shows continuous degradation thus, prima facie establishes that he was getting weak in studies day by day. The inference drawn by the Trial Court regarding the deceased being not academically weak and depressed is therefore not substantiated by any reliable evidence.
(10) With regard to the finding of the learned Trial Court in para 13.11 of the impugned order concerning the flat being locked from inside, it is observed that the Trial Court has drawn an adverse inference without any conclusive material on record. There is no clear evidence or expert opinion available in the case diary to establish that the lock was of such a nature that it could not have been bolted from outside under any circumstances. In the absence of any definite material regarding the nature and mechanism of the lock, the inference drawn by the learned Trial Court is purely speculative and based on assumption.
(11) With regard to the statements of witnesses Rajkumari and Sonam, who have stated that they heard sounds of thumping and footsteps from the upper floor around 02:30 PM, in para 13.12 of the impugned order it is observed that the learned Trial Court has treated this circumstance as suspicious. However, such statements, in the absence of any direct linkage to the alleged incident, do not conclusively establish any incriminating Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 24-02-2026 18:47:20 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5266 18 WP-27928-2025 circumstance against the petitioner.The correlation drawn between the alleged time of death and such sounds is based on inference rather than concrete evidence.
(12) With regard to the finding of the learned Trial Court in para 13.13 of the impugned order based on the post-mortem report, wherein the cause of death has been mentioned as ante-mortem strangulation and the presence of sub-conjunctival hemorrhage in the eyes of the deceased has been treated as indicative of strangulation, it is observed that the said finding is not based on proper appreciation of medical evidence. The learned Trial Court has drawn a conclusive inference of strangulation merely on the basis of the said medical feature. However, such a conclusion is not supported by the expert evidence available on record rather is negatived by it. In this regard, the expert report dated 19.04.2025, particularly para 9.6, when seen clearly states that sub-conjunctival hemorrhage, as noted in the post-mortem report, is a feature commonly found in both cases of hanging as well as strangulation. Therefore, the presence of such a symptom cannot be treated as a definitive indicator of strangulation alone. Despite this clear expert opinion, the learned Trial Court has failed to consider the same and has proceeded to draw an adverse conclusion, which is contrary to the medical and expert evidence on record. Such an approach reflects non-application of mind and misinterpretation of material evidence. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court is based on assumption and is in direct contradiction to the expert report dated 19.04.2025. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from legal infirmity and is bad in law, being perverse and Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 24-02-2026 18:47:20 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5266 19 WP-27928-2025 unsustainable.
16. In view of the above, it is clear that the findings of the learned Trial Court are based none on assumptions and speculations and not on legally admissible and conclusive evidence. In view of the above facts and settled legal principles, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner, in absence of any substantive material and despite her exoneration in the SIT report and Final Report, would amount to abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.
17. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed.
18. The impugned order dated 09.05.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guna, taking cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 103 and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is hereby set aside.
19. Consequently, all further proceedings arising out of Crime No. 115/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali Guna against the petitioner stand quashed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE (aspr) Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 24-02-2026 18:47:20