Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sushil Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 February, 2026
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anand Pathak, Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4201
1 MCRC-2370-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 2 nd OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 2370 of 2026
SUSHIL SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ravindra Singh Kushwah, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Sushil Chandra Chaturvedi, Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anil Verma Petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C') for quashment of impugned order dated 29.09.2025 passed by Special Judge(Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988), Sheopur in Special Case No.01/23, whereby petitioner's application under Section 329 of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that offence under Sections 7,13(1)(B), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been registered against the petitioner and during trial, in an accident, he has suffered mental and physical injuries and he became disabled and as per disability certificate he is suffering from traumatic cervical injury with locomotive disability. Petitioner filed an application under Section 329 of Cr.P.C. by stating that during trial he became unsound mind and consequently unable to make his defence, therefore, trial Court shall postpone further proceedings in trial. After hearing both the parties, trial Court has rejected Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA Signing time: 2/5/2026 10:43:23 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4201 2 MCRC-2370-2026 the application filed by petitioner on the ground that he failed to prove that he has become unsound mind and incapable of making his defence. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, petitioner has preferred this petition.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that due to accident during the trial, he sustained injuries over his head and backbone and also suffered nerve injury on the neck due to which he became unsound mind and consequently incapable to move from anywhere and also became incapable for making his defence. But, trial Court has dismissed his application without assigning any sufficient reason. Hence, he prays that impugned order be set aside and his application under Section 329 of Cr.P.C. be allowed.
4. Per contra , learned counsel for respondent/Lokayukt opposes the prayer and prays for its rejection by supporting the impugned order passed by trial Court.
5. Heard both the parties and perused the record.
6. Before a Magistrate or Court proceeds to "try the fact of unsoundness and incapacity" it must "appear" to the Magistrate or Court that the person is of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence. The word "appears" surely imports a "lesser degree of probability than" proof but then this would not mean that the Magistrate or Court must proceed to "try" the question on mere asking. There must be something either in the form of medical record or other material to raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Magistrate or Court that the accused is of unsound mind. Even the demeanour of the accused may sufficiently lead to such a doubt.
7. In the present case, the plea of insanity/unsoundness of mind of petitioner was raised before the trial Court and trial Court for its satisfaction considered the medical documents and verification report regarding the factum of ailment of petitioner submitted by respondent and also the disability certificate, but from Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA Signing time: 2/5/2026 10:43:23 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4201 3 MCRC-2370-2026 perusal of aforesaid, it appears that petitioner did not file any relevant medical report to establish that he became unsound mind and incapable of making his defence.
8. On the basis of the verification report and medical documents, it is proved that petitioner/accused is mentally sound, fit and capable for making his defence in trial. Therefore, under Section 329 of Cr.P.C., no case is made out for postponing of further proceedings of trial. Therefore, there is a substantial compliance of the provisions contained in Section 329 of Cr.P.C. under the fact of the present case.
9. Therefore, on the basis of aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that impugned order passed by trial Court is just, proper and does not suffer from any illegality or perversity which requires any interference by this Court by way of extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
10. Accordingly, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed by affirming the impugned order passed by trial Court.
(ANAND PATHAK) (ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
R
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA
Signing time: 2/5/2026
10:43:23 AM