SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 8663

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Milind Ramesh Phadke, J
Sanjay Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 36325 of 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Siddharth Sharma
For the Respondents: Samar Ghuraiya

The court held that criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for serious offences like robbery, dacoity, or those under special statutes in cases essentially involving civil property disputes, unless specific statutory requirements and ingredients are clearly met.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 294, 392, 395, 323, 506-B - M.P. Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 - Sections 11 and 13 - Private complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. - Quashment of FIR - Civil dispute over immovable property converted into criminal ones - Offences under Sections 392 and 395 IPC require specific ingredients of robbery and five or more persons respectively; failed to meet threshold as only four persons alleged - Special Act provisions mechanically invoked without nexus to dacoity - Held, proceedings for Section 392, 395 IPC and special act offences quashed while allowing remaining minor offences to continue investigation. (Paras 6, 8, 9, 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The applicants entered into a dispute regarding the possession of a weighbridge and land where they allegedly threatened the complainant and removed agricultural goods. The complainant initiated a private complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC after failing to get police action, leading to an FIR being registered under various IPC sections and the local dacoity special act.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the ingredients for the serious offences of robbery and dacoity, along with the provisions of the special act, were not disclosed in the complaint and were essentially a civil property dispute being given a criminal color.

Issues: Whether the FIR and the order directing its registration under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. should be quashed for offences including robbery, dacoity, and the M.P. Special Act when the underlying dispute is of a civil nature.

Ratio Decidendi: Criminal law cannot be used to settle civil disputes; penal provisions of special statutes must not be invoked mechanically without clear and specific allegations. The absence of essential ingredients for Section 392 (robbery) and 395 (dacoity) necessitates the quashing of such charges.

Result: Application partly allowed.

ORDER

The present application has been preferred by the applicants under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking following reliefs:

"Thus, prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and the Order Impugned dated 09/08/2024 Annexure A and FIR no. 230/2024 under Section 294, 392, 395, 323 & 506 of IPC and Section 11 & 13 of the M.P. Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 at Police Station Mau, Bhind (M.P.) may kindly be quashed in the interest of justice."

Short facts of the case are that the complainant, Rajeev Kushwah, son of Shri Govind Kushwah, resident of Ward No.12, Kasba Mohalla, Gohad, District Bhind, had purchased a land bearing Survey No.290 situated at Village Kheriyajallu, where he constructed an office and a weighbridge (Dharamkanta). In this office, 15 bags of urea fertilizer and 2 bags of mustard seeds were stored for agricultural purposes. On the night of 16–17 March 2024, at about 9:00 PM, while the complainant was returning home from Siyodha village with his brothers Rakesh and Rajnesh, he saw the the present applications No.1 and 2, namely, Sanjay Yadav and Mohan Yadav, sons of Gyasiram Yadav, along with two unknown companions, standing armed outside the boundary wall of his weighbridge premises. When the complainant asked them what they were doing there, Sanjay Yadav (applicant No.1) replied that the weighbridge and the land now belonged to them and threatened that if the complainant did not leave, they would kill him and bury him in the ground. Sanjay Yadav (applicant No.1) loaded his gun and warned him never to come near the weighbridge again. Thereafter, Mohan Yadav, Sanjay Yadav (applicants No.1 & 2), and their two unknown associates abused the complainant and his brothers in filthy language, pointed their 12-bore guns at them, and ordered them to run away. Out of fear, the complainant and his brothers fled the spot and returned home. The next morning, when the complainant went to the weighbridge with his brothers, they found the office broken open, and on checking inside, 15 bags of urea fertilizer and 2 bags of mustard seeds were missing. The complainant alleged that the theft was committed by the same accused persons along with their unknown accomplices. The complainant submitted a written report on 17 March 2024 to the Station House Officer, Police Station Gohad, but no action was taken. Subsequently, on 27 March 2024, he submitted another written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, District Bhind, yet still no action was taken. Therefore, the complainant was compelled to file a private complaint under Section 156(3) of CrPC before the learned Trial Court against the accused persons under Sections 294, 392, 395, 323, 506-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 11 /13 of the MPDVPK Act, which was allowed vide order dated 09.08.2024 with a direction to the Police Station Gohad that on the basis of the complaint, an FIR be registered, the matter be investigated, and after completion of the investigation, a final report be submitted to the Court. In compliance of the order dated 09.08.2024, the Police had lodged FIR bearing Crime No.230 of 2024 against the petitioners and other two unknown persons for the offence under Sections 294, 392, 395, 323, 506-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 11 /13 of the MPDVPK Act. Hence, the present application.

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted before this Court that the present application has been preferred for quashment of FIR No. 230/2024 and all consequential proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No.P/010171/2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 392, 395, 323, 506-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 11 and 13 of the M.P. Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 . The order dated 09/08/2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (Dacoity), Gohad, District Bhind, directing registration of the case under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., is assailed as be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top