Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamal Nath vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8845
1 MCRC-55177-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
ON THE 14th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 55177 of 2025
KAMAL NATH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Bagadia - Senior Advocate (through V.C.) with Shri Saily
Purandare & Shri Dhruv Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Achyutendra Singh Bagel - Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the applicant under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashment of FIR No. 244/2020 dated 06.10.2020, registered at Police Station Bhander, District Datia, for alleged offences punishable under Sections 188, 269 and 270 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, along with all proceedings consequent thereto.
2. The applicant is a senior political leader aged about 78 years and, as disclosed in the petition itself, has been actively associated with political programmes and public engagements during the relevant period. The period in question coincided with enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct on account of the forthcoming Legislative Assembly elections and with the Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 05-02-2026 16:12:56 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8845 2 MCRC-55177-2025 subsistence of statutory and administrative restrictions imposed for containment of the COVID-19 pandemic.
3. The impugned FIR traces its origin to a written complaint submitted by Arvind Mahor, Returning Officer for Assembly Constituency No. 21 (Bhander), District Datia, to the Station House Officer, Police Station Bhander. The Returning Officer was, at the relevant time, entrusted with statutory responsibility to supervise election-related activities and to ensure compliance with orders issued under election laws, prohibitory orders under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and directions issued by the State Government and the High Court in relation to COVID-19 management.
4. The record reveals that an application seeking permission to hold a political public meeting at Mandi Prangan, Bhander, on 05.10.2020 between 10:00 AM and 3:00 PM was submitted by Nahar Singh Yadav, who was then the President of the District Congress Committee, Datia. Along with the application, written undertakings were furnished by Rampal Singh, Narayan Singh, Ramkumar Tiwari, Radhelal and Brijlal Shivhare, who described themselves as organisers of the event and undertook to ensure compliance with all conditions imposed by the competent authority, including adherence to COVID-19 protocols and numerical restrictions on attendance.
5. Upon consideration of the said application and undertakings, the Returning Officer granted conditional permission on 01.10.2020. The permission order specifically stipulated compliance with the Model Code of Conduct, observance of COVID-19 safety measures, restriction on the Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 05-02-2026 16:12:56 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8845 3 MCRC-55177-2025 number of persons attending the meeting, and strict adherence to prohibitory orders issued under Section 144 CrPC. The permission order also referred to prevailing administrative and judicial directions governing political activities during the pandemic.
6. In order to monitor compliance with the aforesaid conditions, the District Administration deployed multiple enforcement and surveillance teams at the venue, including the Flying Squad Team, Static Surveillance Team and Video Surveillance Team, as well as the Block Medical Officer, Bhander. These teams were assigned the task of monitoring the meeting, recording compliance or non-compliance with the imposed conditions, and submitting contemporaneous reports supported by video recordings.
7. As borne out from the record, the public meeting was held on 05.10.2020 at the permitted location. During the course of the meeting, the surveillance teams prepared written reports and video footage capturing the conduct of the event, the presence of political leaders on the dais and within the gathering, and the size and density of the assembled crowd.
8. On examination of the reports submitted by the Flying Squad Team, Static Surveillance Team and Video Surveillance Team, along with the video recordings, the Returning Officer recorded that several political leaders were present at the meeting, including the present applicant. The presence of the applicant at the venue during the meeting is reflected in the surveillance material placed on record.
9. The reports further record that the number of persons present at the venue substantially exceeded the limit prescribed in the permission order.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 05-02-2026 16:12:56NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8845 4 MCRC-55177-2025 Based on visual assessment of the video recordings, the crowd was estimated by the monitoring teams to be significantly higher than the permitted number and was assessed to be in the range of approximately 2000 to 2500 persons.
10. It is further noted in the reports that the gathering continued for a considerable duration and that, during the course of the meeting, the prescribed COVID-19 norms relating to physical distancing and crowd management were not observed in the manner contemplated by the permission order and the prevailing administrative directions. The Block Medical Officer, who was part of the monitoring mechanism, also submitted inputs regarding non-compliance with health-related protocols during the event.
11. After considering the collective inputs received from the surveillance teams, the video recordings and the reports of the medical authority, the Returning Officer recorded satisfaction that the conditions of permission dated 01.10.2020 had not been adhered to and that the meeting had been conducted during the subsistence of prohibitory orders issued under Section 144 CrPC and pandemic-related restrictions.
12. The complaint further reflects that although the formal permission and undertakings were furnished by the named organisers, the meeting involved participation of senior political leaders and continued despite the alleged violations noted by the monitoring teams. The Returning Officer, therefore, forwarded the complaint to the police authorities for initiation of appropriate legal action in accordance with law.
13. Acting upon the said complaint, the Station House Officer, Police Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 05-02-2026 16:12:56 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8845 5 MCRC-55177-2025 Station Bhander, registered FIR No. 244/2020 on 06.10.2020 for alleged offences under Sections 188, 269 and 270 IPC and Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The FIR refers to the existence of prohibitory orders, COVID-19 restrictions, and the alleged conduct of the meeting in violation thereof.
14. The applicant does not dispute his presence at the venue on the date of the meeting. His case, as pleaded in the petition, is that he neither applied for permission nor furnished any undertaking and that the organisation and management of the meeting was undertaken by the District Congress Committee and its office bearers. The applicant asserts that no specific role relating to crowd control or enforcement of COVID-19 protocols has been attributed to him.
15. It is also pleaded by the applicant that the FIR was registered on the basis of the complaint submitted by the Returning Officer and that the police proceeded to register the FIR on the strength of the administrative record placed before them. The investigation pursuant to the FIR is stated to be pending and is based upon documentary material, surveillance reports and electronic evidence, including video recordings.
16. On the aforesaid factual backdrop, the applicant has approached this Court seeking quashment of the FIR and all consequential proceedings at the threshold stage, contending that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
17. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 05-02-2026 16:12:56 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8845 6 MCRC-55177-2025 the present petition is maintainable and deserves to be allowed, inasmuch as the impugned FIR, even if taken at its face value and read in its entirety, does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence against the applicant. It is contended that the criminal law has been set in motion against the applicant without any factual or legal foundation and that continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law.
18. It is urged on behalf of the applicant that the undisputed factual position emerging from the record itself is that the application seeking permission to hold the public meeting dated 05.10.2020 was not made by the applicant. Learned counsel submits that the permission was sought by the President of the District Congress Committee, Datia, and the undertakings assuring compliance with COVID-19 protocols and other conditions were furnished by the named organisers alone. According to the applicant, no obligation, statutory or otherwise, flowed from the permission order so as to bind the applicant.
19. Learned counsel further submits that the FIR does not attribute any specific role or overt act to the applicant. It is argued that the only allegation discernible from the FIR and the accompanying complaint is that the applicant was present at the venue during the meeting. Mere presence at a public gathering, it is contended, cannot by itself constitute an offence under Sections 188, 269 or 270 IPC or under Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
20. It is submitted that an offence under Section 188 IPC presupposes the existence of a lawful order promulgated by a public servant and Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 05-02-2026 16:12:56 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8845 7 MCRC-55177-2025 deliberate disobedience of such order by the accused. Learned counsel contends that the FIR does not disclose that any order was addressed to the applicant or that the applicant was under a legal duty to ensure compliance with the conditions imposed upon the organisers. In the absence of any such duty or intentional disobedience, the invocation of Section 188 IPC is stated to be unsustainable.
21. With regard to Sections 269 and 270 IPC, learned counsel submits that the essential ingredients of the said provisions require a specific act or omission which is likely to spread infection, coupled with knowledge or malignant intention. It is contended that the FIR does not allege that the applicant was suffering from any infectious disease, nor does it attribute any act to him which could be said to be likely to spread infection. The allegations, according to the applicant, are wholly general and lack the requisite mens rea.
22. Learned counsel also submits that Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act criminalises wilful disobedience of directions issued under the Act. It is argued that the FIR does not disclose any direction issued under the Disaster Management Act which was addressed to or knowingly violated by the applicant. The element of wilfulness, it is contended, is conspicuously absent from the allegations.
23. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the FIR has been registered in a mechanical manner on the basis of an administrative communication without independent verification by the police as regards the role of the applicant. It is contended that the applicant has been implicated Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 05-02-2026 16:12:56 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8845 8 MCRC-55177-2025 solely on account of his political stature and presence at the meeting, and that the initiation of criminal proceedings is vitiated by mala fide and political considerations.
24. Placing reliance on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335] and other allied judgments, learned counsel submits that the present case falls within the recognised categories warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, and therefore prays for quashment of the FIR and all consequential proceedings insofar as the applicant is concerned.
25. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State opposes the petition and submits that the application is misconceived and not maintainable at this stage. It is contended that the FIR is based on a written complaint submitted by the Returning Officer, who is a statutory authority, and that the complaint was lodged after examination of contemporaneous reports and surveillance material prepared by various monitoring agencies deployed at the venue.
26. Learned Government Advocate submits that the complaint and the FIR disclose that the public meeting held on 05.10.2020 was conducted during the subsistence of prohibitory orders under Section 144 CrPC and during a period when stringent COVID-19 restrictions were in force. It is argued that the surveillance reports and video recordings prima facie indicate that the number of persons present at the venue far exceeded the permitted limit and that COVID-19 protocols were not adhered to.
27. It is submitted that the presence of the applicant at the venue Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 05-02-2026 16:12:56 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8845 9 MCRC-55177-2025 during the meeting is not disputed and is supported by surveillance material. Learned Government Advocate contends that the extent of the applicant's participation, the impact of his presence on the scale of the gathering, and the question as to whether the applicant shared responsibility for the alleged violations are matters requiring investigation and cannot be adjudicated upon in proceedings for quashment.
28. Learned Government Advocate further submits that the defence sought to be raised by the applicant, namely that he was not an organiser of the meeting and had no role in crowd management, involves disputed questions of fact. Such questions, it is contended, fall outside the limited scope of inquiry under Section 528 BNSS and are matters to be examined during investigation or trial.
29. It is also argued that the FIR discloses the basic ingredients of the offences alleged and that the investigation is at a nascent stage, being founded upon documentary evidence, electronic records and official reports. Interference by this Court at this stage, it is submitted, would amount to stifling a lawful prosecution.
30. Learned Government Advocate, therefore, submits that no case for exercise of inherent jurisdiction is made out and prays for dismissal of the petition.
31. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
32. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it would be apposite to survey the law relating to the scope of inferences under section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashments of FIR, criminal cases and to discharge the accused.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 05-02-2026 16:12:56NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8845 10 MCRC-55177-2025
33. Regarding quashment of FIR, complaint and criminal proceedings, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kamaladevi Agrawal Vs. State of W.B. (2002) 1 SCC 555 has considered the scope and ambit of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., which reads as under :-
"This Court has consistently held that the revisional or inherent powers of quashing the proceedings at the initial stage should be exercised sparingly and only where the allegations made in the complaint or the FIR, even if taken it at the face value and accepted in entirety, do not prima facie disclose the commission of an offence. Disputed and controversial facts cannot be made the basis for the exercise of the jurisdiction."
34. In the case of R. Kalyani Vs. Janak C. Mehta, (2009) SCC 516, Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that :-
Propositions of law which emerge from the said decisions are :
(1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a First Information Report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence.
(2) For the said purpose, the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence.
(3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus.
(4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 05-02-2026 16:12:56 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8845 11 MCRC-55177-2025 continue.
35- The aforesaid legal position has been reiterated in the case of Mahesh Chaudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, (2009) 4 SCC 439 . Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are condign to quote here:-
"13. The principle providing for exercise of the power by a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash a criminal proceeding is well known. The court shall ordinarily exercise the said jurisdiction, inter alia, in the event the allegations contained in the FIR or the Complaint Petition even if on face value are taken to be correct in their entirety, does not disclose commission of an offence.
14. It is also well settled that save and except very exceptional circumstances, the court would not look to any document relied upon by the accused in support of his defence. Although allegations contained in the complaint petition may disclose a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue. For the purpose of exercising its jurisdiction, the superior courts are also required to consider as to whether the allegations made in the FIR or Complaint Petition fulfill the ingredients of the offences alleged against the accused."
9. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. vs.Deepak [(2019) 13 SCC 62], reversing the order of discharging of the High Court, has enunciated the principles which the High Courts must keep in mind while exercising their jurisdiction under the provision. In this case, endorsing another case of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander [(2012) 9 SCC 460 has quoted as under:-
"27. .. At best and upon objective analysis of various judgments of this Court, we are able to cull out some of the principles to be considered for proper exercise of jurisdiction, particularly, with regard to quashing of charge either in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 or Section 482 of the Code or together, as the case may be:Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 05-02-2026 16:12:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8845 12 MCRC-55177-2025 27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere. 27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge.
27.4. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave error that might be committed by the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High Court should be loath to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers.
27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice.
27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie."
35- Again, on this aspect, the verdict of Hon'ble the Apex Court in a recent judgment of Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Niraj Tyagi and Ors. reported in 2024 LawSuit (SC) 112 decided on 13.02.2024, is significant. Paras 22, 23 & 24 are worth to be referred to the context of this case :-
"22. Recently, a Three-Judge Bench in Neeharika Infrastructure (supra) while strongly deprecating the practice of the High Courts in staying the investigations or directing not to take coercive action against the accused pending petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has issued the guidelines, which may be reproduced Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 05-02-2026 16:12:56 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8845 13 MCRC-55177-2025 hereinbelow for ready reference:-
"Conclusions
33. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or coercive steps to be adopted", during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or "no coercive steps to be adopted" during the investigation or till the final report/charge-sheet is filed under Section 173 CrPC, while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under:
33.1. Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Codeb of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence.
33.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences.
33.3. It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on.
33.4. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the "rarest of rare cases" (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). 33.5. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. 33.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage.
33.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule.
33.8. Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 05-02-2026 16:12:56 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8845 14 MCRC-55177-2025 one ought not to tread over the other sphere. 33.9. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping.
33.10. Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences.
33.11. Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice.
33.12. The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure. 33.13. The power under Section 482CrPC is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court.
33.14. However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur [R.P.Kapur v. State of Punjab, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 : AIR 1960 SC 866] and Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426], has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint.
33.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 05-02-2026 16:12:56 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8845 15 MCRC-55177-2025 to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.
33.16. The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or "no coercive steps to be adopted" and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or "no coercive steps" either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/charge-sheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 33.17. Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482 CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order.
33.18. Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of "no coercive steps to be adopted" within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by "no coercive steps to be adopted" as the Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 05-02-2026 16:12:56 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8845 16 MCRC-55177-2025 term "no coercive steps to be adopted" can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied."
23. The impugned orders passed by the High Court are in utter disregard and in the teeth of the said guidelines issued by the Three-Judge Bench of this Court. It was sought to be submitted by the Learned Counsels for the respondents-accused that the allegations made in the FIRs are of civil nature, and have been given a colour of criminal nature. According to them, as discernible from the record, number of proceedings had ensued between the parties pursuant to the actions taken by the IHFL against the complainant-borrower for the recovery of its dues under the SARFAESI Act, and the borrower M/s Shipra after having failed in the said proceedings had filed the complaints with ulterior motives. We do not propose to examine the merits of the said submissions as the writ petitions filed by the concerned respondents-accused seeking quashing of the FIRs on such grounds are pending for consideration before the High Court. It would be open for the High Court to examine the merits of the petitions and decide the same in accordance with law.
24. Without elaborating any further, suffice it to say that judicial comity and judicial discipline demands that higher courts should follow the law. The extraordinary and inherent powers of the court do not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whims and caprice."
36- It is also well established that when the case is prima facie established from the material available on record it would not apposite for the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings considering the chances of conviction or acquittal. Where material evidence is available against the applicant it should be left to be decided by the trial Court which is the appropriate forum for the evaluation of the said materials and evidences. On this aspect the view of Hon'ble Apex Court recently held in the case of Just Rights for Children Alliance & Anr. vs. S. Harish & Ors., reported in 2024 LawSuit(SC) 847 is condign to quote here as under --
Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 05-02-2026 16:12:56NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8845 17 MCRC-55177-2025 "189. Once the foundational facts are prima facie established from the materials on record, it would be improper for the High Court in a quashing petition to conduct an intricate evidentiary inquiry into the facts and ascertain whether the requisite mental elements are present or not. All these aspects should be left to be decided by the trial court which is the appropriate forum for the evaluation of the same, especially where the statutory presumption has been attracted prima facie from the material on record.
190. When the High Court quashes any criminal proceedings without considering the legal effect of the statutory presumption, it effectively scuttles the process of trial and thereby denies the parties the opportunity to adduce appropriate evidence and the right to a fair trial. This would not only defeat the very case of the prosecution but would also thwart the very object of a particular legislation and thereby undermine the public confidence in the criminal justice system."
37- Without elaborating any further, suffice it to say that judicial comity and judicial discipline demands that higher courts should follow the law. The extraordinary and inherent powers of the court do not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whims and caprice."
38- . It is also well established that when the case is prima facie established from the material available on record it would not be appropriate for the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings considering the chances of conviction or acquittal. Where material evidence is available against the applicant it should be left to be decided by the trial Court which is the appropriate forum for the evaluation of the said materials and evidences.
39- This Court has bestowed its anxious consideration to the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and has carefully perused the FIR, the complaint submitted by the Returning Officer, the permission order dated 01.10.2020, and the material placed on record alongwith the petition.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 05-02-2026 16:12:56NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8845 18 MCRC-55177-2025 40- At the outset, it is required to be noted that the scope of interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, at the stage of investigation, is extremely limited. The settled legal position is that the Court is not expected to embark upon a meticulous examination of the evidence or to adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact while considering a prayer for quashment of an FIR.
41- The guiding principle is that if the allegations contained in the FIR, taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the Court should ordinarily refrain from interfering and allow the investigation to proceed in accordance with law.
42- In the present case, the FIR is founded upon a written complaint submitted by the Returning Officer, who was a statutory authority entrusted with the responsibility of enforcing the Model Code of Conduct and ensuring compliance with prohibitory and pandemic-related orders during the election period. The complaint is not based on mere conjecture but is stated to have been lodged after examination of contemporaneous reports submitted by the Flying Squad Team, Static Surveillance Team, Video Surveillance Team, and inputs received from the Block Medical Officer.
43- The material placed on record indicates that permission to conduct the public meeting was granted subject to specific conditions, including restriction on the number of persons, adherence to COVID-19 protocols, and compliance with prohibitory orders issued under Section 144 CrPC. The complaint and the FIR allege that the meeting was conducted in violation of Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 05-02-2026 16:12:56 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8845 19 MCRC-55177-2025 these conditions and during the subsistence of such prohibitory orders.
44- The presence of the applicant at the venue on the date of the meeting is not in dispute. The surveillance reports and video recordings, as referred to in the complaint, record his presence and participation in the political programme. Whether such presence and participation attract criminal liability, and if so to what extent, are matters which require appreciation of evidence and cannot be conclusively determined at this stage.
45- The contention of the applicant that he was not the organiser of the meeting and that he had not sought permission or furnished undertakings raises issues which are essentially factual in nature. Such contentions constitute a defence which would require examination of evidence and cannot be adjudicated upon in proceedings for quashment of the FIR.
46- The offences alleged pertain to disobedience of lawful orders and conduct during a public health emergency. The FIR, read as a whole, cannot be said to be bereft of allegations so as to warrant interference at the threshold. The existence of contemporaneous official reports and electronic evidence prima facie indicates that the allegations are not wholly illusory or improbable.
47- The reliance placed by learned counsel for the applicant on the principles laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (supra) does not advance the case of the applicant, inasmuch as the present case does not fall within any of the categories warranting quashment at the inception. The allegations in the FIR do disclose a prima facie case and do not appear to be manifestly malafide or inherently absurd.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 05-02-2026 16:12:56NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8845 20 MCRC-55177-2025 48- It is equally well settled that this Court, while exercising inherent jurisdiction, must be circumspect and should not stifle a legitimate prosecution, particularly when the investigation is at a nascent stage and is based on documentary and electronic material which is yet to be tested.
49- This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the issues raised by the applicant involve disputed questions of fact which require investigation and possibly trial, and that no exceptional circumstances are made out for exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR.
50- Consequently, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. Therefore, the present petition sans merit is dismissed accordingly.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI) JUDGE rv Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 05-02-2026 16:12:56