Inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 must be exercised judiciously, especially when a party delays in seeking relief.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE th ON THE 9 OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 39585 of 2025 AJAB SINGH LODHI Versus THE STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma - Advocate for applicant.

Shri Samar Ghuraiya - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.

ORDER The applicant has preferred the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 / Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , seeking quashment of FIR registered at Police Station Maharajpura, District Gwalior vide Crime No.664/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned FIR is false, frivolous, and has been lodged as an arm-twisting tactic to compel the applicant’s family to enter into compromise in Crime No.258/2020, registered for offences punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, and 120-B of the IPC, wherein one of the family members of the applicant, namely Sikandar Singh Lodhi, was murdered by the complainant party. It is urged that the present FIR has been registered with mala fide intention to Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA harass the applicant, and allowing the proceedings to continue would amount to abuse of the process of law. On these grounds, prayer for quashment of FIR has been made.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and contended that the FIR was registered in the year 2021, whereas the present petition has been filed only in the year 2025, after more than four years. It is further argued that the grounds raised relate to disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C .

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. In the present case, the FIR was lodged in the year 2021, whereas this petition has been filed only in 2025, after more than four years. The applicant has failed to furnish any cogent explanation for not approaching this Court earlier. This delayed approach clearly reflects lack of diligence on the part of applicant and the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C . cannot be invoked on such vague grounds.

6. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code or the power of superintendence vested in the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution are not expected to be invoked very lightly. Here is the case wherein the applicant has slept over his supposed grievances for more than three years and it is apparent that he has approached this Court only when he came to know that the court was actually proceeding with the case. The intention of the applicant is, therefore, quite apparent. He obviously wants to impede the proceedings of the lower Court by showing his liveliness to his supposed grievances after more than Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA three years. Neither the inherent powers contemplated by Section 482 of the Cr.P.C . nor the powers of superintendence contemplated by Article 227 of the Constitution are meant to help such tactics of a litigant. On this short ground this petition is liable to be thrown out. (Please see: Gopal Chauhan v.

Smt. Satya & Anr., 1979 Crl.LJ 446)

7. Further, the plea of false implication raised by the applicant involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated at this stage and must necessarily be tested in the course of trial upon appreciation of evidence. This Court cannot, under the garb of exercising inherent powers, conduct a mini-trial.

8. In view of the above, no case for quashment of FIR is made out.

9. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.