Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dilip Deo vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 July, 2025
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19496
1
M.Cr.C. No.50261-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 1st OF JULY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 50261 of 2023
DILIP DEO
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Dilip Deo- petitioner in person.
Shri Vinod Thakur- G.A. for the State.
ORDER
Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
2] This petition has been filed by the petitioner Dilip Deo, a film Editor, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., for quashing the FIR lodged at Crime No.07/2016 at Police Station Birlagram, District Ujjain under Sections 507 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, as also the proceedings pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagda, Ujjain in Case No.29/2018.
3] In brief, the facts of the case are that the aforesaid FIR was lodged against the petitioner on 05.01.2016, in respect of an incident which took place on 04.01.2016. Initially, it was lodged under Section 507 of the IPC and Section 66A of the I.T. Act, however, the charge-sheet has been filed under Sections 506B, 406, 420 and 34 of the IPC. In the FIR lodged by the complainant Mohammad Ali, it is alleged that he met with one Vinod Nischal at Bru Café Shop in Lokhandwala, Mumbai, who told him that he handles film promotion at a very low budget, and he also visited his office in Indore several times. Vinod then introduced the complainant Signature Not Verified Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA Signing time: 19-08-2025 18:13:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19496 2 M.Cr.C. No.50261-2023 Mohammad Ali to Narendra Singh, Balkrishna, Haider Gola, and the petitioner herein viz., Dilip Deo. It is alleged that an agreement was also entered into between the complainant and these individuals for the purpose of film promotion, and money was also transferred by the complainant to various bank accounts designated by them, however, despite receiving the payments, they did not perform any work as per the contract, and also stopped answering the complainant's calls and began abusing and threatening him. It is further alleged that on 04.01.2016, between 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 pm, the complainant received various calls on his mobile phone from Balkrishna, Haider Gola, and Dilip Deo, who threatened to kill him and warned him never to call any of them in the future, even by mistake, and also told him that if he wants to remain safe, he should forget about the money.
4] Shri Dilip Deo, the petitioner in person has submitted that he is being persecuted as a false case has been registered against him, despite the fact that it was purely a civil dispute, and despite the fact that the Mumbai Police, as also the Police at Ujjain had already given him a clean chit. It is also submitted that the Human Rights Commission, New Delhi vide its order dated 16.10.2017 has also directed the concerned police station to pay a sum or Rs.25,000/- as an interim relief to the wife of the petitioner who was also harassed, and which amount has already been paid to the petitioner. It is also mentioned in the aforesaid communication/order that the delinquent police personnel have also been dealt with and punished departmentally.
5] Shri Deo has also submitted that even on perusal of the FIR it would be apparent that the cause of action had arisen at Mumbai, and only with a view to bring the jurisdiction at Ujjain, it is alleged by the complainant that on 04.01.2016, at round 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. he, on his Signature Not Verified Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA Signing time: 19-08-2025 18:13:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19496 3 M.Cr.C. No.50261-2023 mobile phone received various calls from Balkishan, R/o Heerapanna Mall, Andheri, Haider Gola R/o Heerapanna Mall, Andheri, Narendra Singh R/o Filmybox Four Bungalow, Mhada, Andheri, Dilip Dev R/o Andheri, Mumbai (the present petitioner) and Vinod Nischal R/o Mumbai, who called him in alternate and threatened him that if he ever calls any of them henceforth, and if he comes to Mumbai, his life would not be spared, and also that if he wants to stay alive, he should forget his money.
6] Shri Deo has also drawn the attention of this Court to the departmental inquiry initiated against the Inspector R.K. Singh, the then SHO Birlagram, Ujjain wherein, it has been found that a false case has been registered against the applicant, and it was not such a serious offence where the team was required to be sent to Mumbai. Shri Deo has also drawn the attention of this Court to the final order dated 05.05.2017 passed by the Additional Director General and Inspector General of Ujjain Zone regarding the said departmental inquiry, wherein, after finding that the reply submitted by him was not satisfactory, one increment has been withheld with cumulative effect. It has also been found in the said order dated 05.05.2017 that the Police team had forced the wife of the petitioner to give a check of Rs.10 lakhs to the complainant which also amounted to illegality. Shri Deo has also drawn the attention of this Court to the another charge-sheet issued to the Sub- Inspector Ramnath Bharti, Head- Constable Narayan Singh and Constable Nanuram who had gone to Mumbai in connection with the aforesaid offense. Attention of this Court has also been drawn to the final order dated 30.09.2017, wherein one increment has been withheld on cumulative effect after finding that the reply submitted by them is not satisfactory.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA Signing time: 19-08-2025 18:13:43NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19496 4 M.Cr.C. No.50261-2023 7] Shri Deo has also submitted that the complainant Mohammad Ali himself has many criminal antecedents and it is improbable that he would be intimidated by any person on a call. Shri Deo has also drawn the attention of this Court to the letter dated 26.01.2016 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Borivali, Mumbai to the S.P., Ujjain regarding the misconduct of the staff of Birlagram Police Station, Nagda, registering his protest that the aforesaid Police Station did not inform its action in the jurisdiction of local Police Station in Mumbai for local police assistance as per the standard procedure in Cr.P.C, in which it is also mentioned that the said Police team made a phone call by a false name to the accused Dilip Deo and called him at Bru Café shop, Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (West) only on the pretext of film editing contract and from there Mr. Deo was taken into custody in a private Innova car to his residence at Oshiwara Industrial Estate, Link Road, Goregaon West, Mumbai, in the jurisdiction of Bangurnagar Police Station, but the said Police Station was also not informed about the M.P. Police's operation in the jurisdiction of the said Police Station. It was also informed that at the residence of the accused Dilip Deo, the Police team made Mrs. Madhumita Roy, the wife of the accused to write a check of Rs.10 Lakhs and hand it over to the complainant. Shri Deo has also drawn the attention of this Court to the report submitted by the Additional Superintendent of Police, (Rural -1) District Ujjain dated 24.02.2016, which is the preliminary enquiry report giving details of the illegalities committed by the concerned Police Station at Nagda, Ujjain.
8] Lastly, Shri Deo has also submitted that he has suffered irreparably on account of the mala-fide exercise of the powers of the police personnel, because after lodging of the FIR, people have started avoiding him and stopped engaging him, landing him in a hand to mouth situation.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA Signing time: 19-08-2025 18:13:43NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19496 5 M.Cr.C. No.50261-2023 Thus, it is submitted that the FIR as also the subsequent proceedings be quashed and the petition be allowed with costs.
9] Counsel for the State, as also the objector, on the other hand, have opposed the prayer. Although, the objectors have not filed any reply to the petition.
10] Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11] Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, it is apparent that the FIR in the present case was lodged by the complainant Mohammad Ali on 05.01.2016, under Section 507 ( criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication) of the IPC and Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 against five persons, namely, Balkrishna, Haider Gola, Narendra Singh, Dilip Deo (present petitioner) and Vinod Nischal, alleging threatening calls given by the accused persons. On the face of it, it appears to be a sham FIR, as Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015 in the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India reported as AIR 2015 SC 1523, even Section 507 of IPC would not be attracted because the calls, as alleged by the complainant, were not made by anonymous callers but specifically named accused persons. Thus, on an FIR which could not have been lodged in the first place, the applicant was arrested on 11.01.2016, and the final report was filed on 23.12.2017 under Sections 507, 506B, 406, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
12] It is also found from the FIR itself that the complainant had met with the accused Vinod Nischal in Lokhandwala area Mumbai, who informed him that he is in the business of film promotion and asked him to invest in his business, and it is also stated that subsequently, the complainant also met with the co-accused Narendra Singh, Balkrishna Signature Not Verified Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA Signing time: 19-08-2025 18:13:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19496 6 M.Cr.C. No.50261-2023 and Haider Gola, but not the present petitioner Dilip Deo, and an agreement was also entered into between them. It is further alleged that after taking the money from him, the accused persons, including the petitioner Dilip Deo, did not perform their part of the contract, and also stopped taking his calls, and whenever he called them, they threatened him of dire consequences. It is also found that to confer the territorial jurisdiction to the concerned police station, it is further alleged that on 04.01.2016, at around 8:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. in the evening, when the applicant was standing near the shop of one Dinesh Bhati in Birlagram at Ujjain, at that time, he received calls from the accused persons from their respective mobile phones, where they threatened him of dire consequences and told him not to call them ever, and also not to come to Mumbai, otherwise, he will face serious consequences. 13] It is apparent from the aforesaid FIR that the only allegation against the applicant is of calling him and threatening him on phone from Mumbai. It is also found that in the FIR, there is no reference of any amount which the complainant had given to the accused persons, and what is more surprising is that in the text of the final report under Section 507, 506B, 406, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, also, there is absolutely no reference of any amount having been given by the complainant to the accused persons or specifically to the petitioner. Although, it is also found that the Ujjain Police had also obtained a cheque of Rs.10 Lakhs from the petitioner's wife at the time of his arrest in Mumbai.
14] It is also an undisputed fact that the S.P. Ujjain had also initiated a departmental enquiry against the Inspector R.K. Singh, the then SHO, Birlagram, Nagda, regarding sending of a team without permission to Mumbai for the purposes of investigation and to arrest the accused Signature Not Verified Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA Signing time: 19-08-2025 18:13:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19496 7 M.Cr.C. No.50261-2023 persons. In the aforesaid enquiry, the said Inspector has already been punished vide order dated 05.05.2017, wherein, after finding that the reply submitted by him was not satisfactory one increment has been withheld with cumulative effect. A charge-sheet has also been issued to the Sub-Inspector Ramnath Bharti who had gone to Mumbai in connection with the aforesaid offense, wherein vide order dated 30.09.2017, one increment has been withheld with cumulative effect after finding that the reply submitted by him is not satisfactory. 15] It is also found that the Mumbai Police had also initiated a parallel enquiry into the aforesaid investigation carried out by the Police Station, Nagda and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Borivali, Mumbai Police, vide its report dated 26.01.2016, concluded in the following manner:-
"Above findings in the enquiry clearly shows that there were serious procedural lapses done by the Investigation team with utter disregard to the standard laid down practice as per the Code of Criminal of Procedure and Police Manual. Making Mrs Madhumita Roy write a cheque of 10 lakh favoring Complainant in said crime, in presence Police team indicated directly at the malafide intention of the team. Once the team had left the residence of the accused they came to Bangurnagar police stn and made a false reporting of the events that took place during the course investigation. This is also a very serious misconduct of false representation of the event to the local police station. In view of the above findings strong Disciplinary action may be taken against ASI Ramnath Dadulal Bharti, HC1139 Narayansingh Daulatsings Waskel and PC 1434 Nanuram Bhagatram Patidar."
16] It is also found that the Human Rights Commission vide its interim order dated 16.10.2017 has also imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- on Police Station Birlagram Nagda.
17] It is difficult to believe that the complainant who was able to manage the police in such a manner, would feel threatened by some persons, who have no criminal antecedents, and who are also calling him from Mumbai. It is also found that there is nothing on record to suggest that there was actual telephonic conversation between the parties. Thus, Signature Not Verified Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA Signing time: 19-08-2025 18:13:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19496 8 M.Cr.C. No.50261-2023 only on the saying of the complainant, the Police has registered the FIR under Section 507 of IPC and Section 66A of the IT Act which could not have been invoked, without any demur and without referring the amount, which, according to the complainant, was given by him to the accused persons.
18] In such circumstances, this Court finds that the FIR in the present case was apparently lodged with mala fide intention only to recover money from the applicant in a case which had all the trappings of a civil dispute.
19] In such factual and legal circumstances, coupled with the orders passed by the S.P. Ujjain and Deputy Commissioner of Police, Borivali, Mumbai, this Court has no hesitation to allow the petition and quash the FIR lodged at Crime No.07/2016 at Police Station Birlagram, District Ujjain, under Section 507 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, as also the subsequent charge- sheet under Sections 506B, 406, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as also the proceedings pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagda, Ujjain in Case No.29/2018, so far as it relates to the petitioner, with an exemplary cost of Rs.5 lakhs for all the suffering caused to the petitioner, to be paid by the State to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, with a further liberty to the State to recover the same from the delinquent police officers and the complainant in accordance with law.
20] Accordingly, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE Bahar Signature Not Verified Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA Signing time: 19-08-2025 18:13:43