Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bharat Singh Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8531
1 MCRC-34794-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
ON THE 11th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 34794 of 2024
BHARAT SINGH TOMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Mr. Trishant Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Anurag Sharma - Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
The present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashment of FIR No.121/2020, registered under Sections 379 and 414 of the IPC, Sections 4 and 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, and Rule 18(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2022, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR was initially lodged against M/s Dwarkadhish Construction Company, of which the Proprietor is Satyadev Sharma. The petitioner is a petty contractor running a firm named Vinayak Construction Company. In accordance with an agreement, the work allotted to M/s Dwarkadhish Construction Company was executed by the petitioner's firm.
3. It is further submitted that certain trucks of gitti (crushed stone) Signature Not Verified Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN Signing time: 3/13/2026 11:43:35 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8531 2 MCRC-34794-2024 were seized by the authorities in 2020 on the grounds that the said minerals were being transported without payment of royalty. Crucially, the agreement between the petitioner and the main contractor was only executed in the year 2021 which is evident from agreement annexed at page No.16; therefore, any liability arising from the 2020 seizure rests solely with M/s Dwarkadhish Construction Company and not the petitioner. In light of these circumstances, the FIR registered against the present petitioner is misplaced and deserves to be quashed.
4. Per contra, counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer made by the petitioner. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the agreement, wherein the responsibility for the work from 11.01.2019 onwards was assigned to the present petitioner. In light of these facts, the petitioner, having been assigned the work by M/s Dwarkadhish Construction Company, is solely responsible for the alleged seizure of minerals. Accordingly, he prays for the dismissal of the present petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto. The primary contention of the petitioner rests on the assertion that the agreement with M/s Dwarkadhish Construction Company was executed only in 2021, thereby absolving him of any liability for the illegal transportation of minerals occurring in 2020. Conversely, the State contends that the petitioner assumed contractual responsibility as early as 11.01.2019. Accordingly, this Court observes that the determination of the exact period during which the petitioner was managing the operations is a matter of evidence that cannot be adjudicated in a summary proceeding under Signature Not Verified Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN Signing time: 3/13/2026 11:43:35 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8531 3 MCRC-34794-2024 Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS). Whether the agreement was backdated or whether the petitioner was already executing the work at the time of the seizure is a triable issue. Prima facie there are disputed questions of fact regarding the petitioner's involvement and the validity of the contractual dates, this Court finds no ground to interfere at this preliminary stage.
6. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. However, petitioner is at liberty to the petitioner to raise all such pleas before the trial court during the framing of charges or the trial.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA ) JUDGE (LJ*) Signature Not Verified Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN Signing time: 3/13/2026 11:43:35 AM