Madhya Pradesh High Court
Director Aacharya Varchaspati vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15730
1 MCRC-20214-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
ON THE 12th OF MAY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 20214 of 2024
DIRECTOR AACHARYA VARCHASPATI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Bahirani - Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Satendra Singh Sikarwar - Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
The present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 12.04.2024, passed in RCT No. 1851 of 2024 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior, whereby cognizance was taken under Sections 18(1)/36(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, and Sections 4 and 6(2) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, against the petitioners.
At the very outset, it is submitted that due to inadvertence, the fine amount imposed by the authorities on the basis of the compromise application filed by the petitioners was not deposited within the stipulated time frame. In such circumstances, the petitioners pray for seven days' time to deposit the same.
Counsel for the respondent/State vehemently opposed the contentions made by the counsel for the petitioner. It is further submitted that despite the Signature Not Verified Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN Signing time: 5/13/2026 11:01:14 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15730 2 MCRC-20214-2024 time granted by the authorities to the petitioners to deposit the same, the order has not been complied with. Furthermore, since the charge sheet has already been filed, bypassing the available remedy to approach this Court directly is not maintainable. If they want to resolve the matter, they should approach the concerned trial Court and ventilate their grievance. In such circumstances, he prays for its dismissal.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is undisputed that the petitioners failed to deposit the fine within the time originally stipulated by the authorities. Furthermore, as the charge sheet has already been filed, the petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy available before the trial court. This Court finds no extraordinary circumstances to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. when the petitioners have bypassed the regular course of law.
Consequently, the petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioners to approach the concerned trial court to seek appropriate relief or to ventilate their grievances.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA ) JUDGE (LJ*) Signature Not Verified Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN Signing time: 5/13/2026 11:01:14 AM