1. Petitions against FIR and charge sheet under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC alleging fabricated motor accident claim and police misconduct. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 4232
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vivek Jain, J
Roopansh Khatri – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
MCRC 17182/2018
Advocates:
,Advocate General
,Advocate General
When investigation and charge-sheet are based on fabricated documents and no legal evidence, High Court can quash FIR under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Quashing of FIR - Powers of High Court - Where allegations in FIR are absurd, inherently improbable, or no legal evidence, proceedings can be quashed to prevent abuse of process - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279, 337, 338 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 133 - Duty of owner to give information - Cannot be used to physically call owner and driver to police station or extract admission under pressure - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 25 to 27 - Confession to police officer not admissible - Disclosure statement admissible only to extent of discovery of fact - Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations - Clause 815 - Obligation to send injured to nearest hospital for examination - Fabrication of documents by police - Delay in lodging FIR without explanation - Prescription not amounting to medical certificate - No seizure of medical records - No statements of doctors recorded - Quashing justified.
(B) Quashing of criminal proceedings - Parameters - Where there is no legal evidence or evidence is manifestly inconsistent with accusation, or proceeding is maliciously instituted with ulterior motive, FIR can be quashed - Reliance on, Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401 and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.
(C) Confession to police - Sections 25 and 26 of Evidence Act - Complete embargo - Admission extracted under pressure when owner called under Section 133 MV Act not admissible - Reliance on, Randeep Singh v. State of Haryana, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3383.
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were impleaded in an FIR registered under Sections 279, 337 IPC (later 338 added) for an alleged motor accident on 26.03.2017. The FIR was lodged on 20.06.2017 after a delay of nearly three months. The petitioners alleged that the FIR and investigation were fabricated in connivance with police to enable the complainant to claim insurance compensation. The police had created false letters, did not seize medical records, and issued a notice under Section 133 MV Act to pressurize the vehicle owner to admit guilt. The court called for the case diary and found serious discrepancies, including a letter with fabricated number and date, lack of proper medical certificate, and no independent investigation.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the police had manipulated records, fabricated letters dated 31.03.2017 and 01.06.2017, and abused powers under Section 133 MV Act. The medical evidence did not support a fracture; only a prescription showing a 'doubtful old healed crack' was submitted by the complainant without seizure. No statements of doctors were recorded. The delay in FIR was not properly explained. The admission purportedly made by petitioner No.2 was not admissible under Sections 25-27 of Evidence Act. The court held that the entire prosecution was based on no legal evidence and was a gross abuse of process.
Issues: Whether the FIR and charge-sheet were liable to be quashed due to fabricated evidence and abuse of police power?
Ratio Decidendi: When the investigation and charge-sheet are based on fabricated documents and no legal evidence, and the proceedings are manifestly malicious and oppressive, the High Court can quash the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC / Article 226 of the Constitution to prevent abuse of process of law.
Result: Both petitions allowed. FIR and all consequential proceedings in Crime No.60/2017 and R.T. No.4854/2017 quashed. The Director General of Police directed to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the conduct of police officials and take appropriate action, including criminal prosecution if warranted.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
-
practice and procedure
- criminal procedure
- evidence
- police regulations
- motor vehicle law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners: FIR and investigation fabricated to facilitate false compensation claims. Respondents: proper investigation, delay due to jurisdictional confusion. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
3. FIR and consequential proceedings quashed; Director General of Police directed to conduct preliminary inquiry into police officials' misconduct. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 )
4. When can a FIR be quashed under Section 482 CrPC on ground of no legal evidence and mala fide investigation?
When allegations and evidence collected do not disclose any offence and are inherently improbable, or proceedings are maliciously instituted, FIR and charge sheet can be quashed. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 )
5. Is a notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicle Act valid if it requires the owner and driver to physically appear at the police station?
No. Section 133 only requires owner to give information regarding name, address, and licence of driver; calling owner and driver physically is an abuse of power and beyond scope. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 )
6. What is the evidentiary value of a confession or disclosure statement made to a police officer under Sections 25-27 of the Indian Evidence Act?
Confession to police is inadmissible unless made in presence of Magistrate. Under Section 27, only that part of information that distinctly relates to discovery of a fact is admissible. (Para 46 , 47 )
7. What is the police's duty under Clause 815 of M.P. Police Regulations regarding examination of wounded persons?
Police must convey injured persons to nearest hospital with requisition for examination. Failure to do so is a violation and indicates non-existence of complaint. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 )
8. What is the legal significance of a prescription not meeting the requirements of a medical certificate under Indian Medical Council Regulations?
A simple prescription without proper certificate as per Clause 1.3.3 of the Regulations, and without seizure from hospital or doctor's statement, cannot be relied upon as evidence of injury. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 )
(ORDER)
(Reserved on : 06/02/2025)
(Pronounced on : 05/06/2025)
These two petitions have been filed arising out of FIR and consequential proceedings against the petitioners in crime No. 60/2017 registered at Police Station Gora Bazar, Jabalpur under Sections 279, 337 IPC wherein charge-sheet has subsequently been filed under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC against petitioner No.1.
2. In W.P. No. 127/2018 which is filed by Roopansh Khatri and Sahil Khatri respectively as petitioners No. 1 and 2, prayer has been made to constitute a Special Investigation Team or pass an order for some high power special agency to investigate into the manipulations made in the said FIR and consequential investigation only for facilitating claim of compensation by the complainant i.e. respondent No. 5 Rishabh Jain in connivance of the police officials i.e. respondents No. 3 and 4. A further prayer is made to take departmental action against the respondents No. 3 to 5 and prosecute respondent No. 3 to 6 or to pass any other order to meet the ends of justice.
3. In M.Cr.C. No. 17182/2018 which is filed by Roopansh Khatri as sole petitioner, prayer has been made to quash the charge sheet arising out of the aforesaid crime which has resulted into criminal case R.T. No. 4854/2017 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur.
4. For the purpose of this common order, reference to parties and documents is taken from W.P. No. 127/2018, unless expressly mentioned otherwise.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the present petitioners are real brothers. Petitioner No. 2 is owner of the motor-cycle having registration No. MP20-MV-8612 model CBR Honda. It is their case that petitioners belong to affluent family and own good property in Jabalpur City. There is a racket going on in Jabalpur to implicate persons having good financial means and having vehicles of their ownership, in false motor accident claims case only so as to extract compensation either from the vehicle owners or from the insurance company. It is the case of the petitioners that they have been made victims of the racket going on between the claimants and police officials to lodge false FIRs, conduct biased investigation and implicate vehicles in non-existent road traffic accidents so that insurance amount can be got extracted from the Insurance Company or from the vehicle owner and in this racket vehicle of the petitioner No. 2 also got involved and they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further argued that care is taken in such cases to make out weak cases which is not sustained in criminal trial but some police record will be made out so as to extract compensation from the Insurance Company by filing claim case before the Claims Tribunal. In this manner the innocent vehicle owners who have no role in the accident case nor their vehicles are actually involved, but still they are being made to face criminal trial though they will be ultimately acquitted but they are having to unnecessarily face creation of a criminal record against them only so as to facilitate certain unscrupulous persons to claim fabricated motor accident claim compensation in connivance with the police officials to lodge such false FIRs. These persons like petitioners also have to face unwarranted prosecution for years together.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that in this case the entire FIR and investigation is fabricated and farce. The incident is said to have taken place on 26.03.2017 at about 6:00 PM when the motor cycle driven by the complainant Rishabh Jain dashed with motor cycle driven by the petitioner No. 1 and owned by the petitioner No. 2. It is contended that for a long period nothing took place though the incident is alleged to have taken place on 26.3.2017 at Dumna Road going towards Jabalpur Airport near Nehra Company. For the first time, a Dehati Nalish was registered on 19.06.2017 at police station Ranjhi, District Jabalpur though the area does not fa
