IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 22798 of 2024 DR. ANITA JAIN AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Rakesh Kumar Sharma - Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Abhijeet Singh Tomar - Advocate for the petitioners. Shri BPS Chouhan - Public Prosecutor for the State.

Shri Pradhuman Singh Bhadauria - Advocate for the respondent No.2.

RESERVED ON :- 04/12/2025 DELIVERED ON :- 8/12/2025 ORDER The present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed by Petitioners No.1 to 4, namely, Dr. Anita Jain, Mukesh Jain, Bhurelal Baghel and Raj Kishore seeking quashment of the private complaint as well as the order dated 03.04.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhind in RCT No. 342 of 2024, whereby cognizance has been taken for offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 (Part II) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Short facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1, Dr. Anita Jain, is the In-charge Principal of Jain Mahavidyalaya, Bhind (for short ''the College''). Petitioner No.2, Mukesh Jain, is the President of Shri Bhadawar Prantik Digambar Jain Sabha, Bhind, the body under whose management the College is being run. Petitioner No.3, Bhurelal Baghel, is employed as a peon in the College, while Petitioner No.4, Rajkishore, works as a peon- cum-security guard in the said institution. It is pertinent to mention that in the private complaint, the name of Petitioner No.4 has been incorrectly recorded as “Kishori”. The Respondent No.2/complainant, Padam Chand Jain was earlier employed as a peon in the College. His services were valid only up-to

30.04.2020, after which his employment stood terminated.

As per the averments made in the private complaint, on 11.12.2021, the respondent No.2 was called to the College by petitioner No.3, Bhurelal, and upon reaching there, he was allegedly assaulted and abused in filthy language by the accused persons. According to the private complaint, the respondent submitted a written complaint to the Station House Officer, City Kotwali, Bhind, and also to the Superintendent of Police, Bhind, pursuant to which N.C.R. No.212/2021 was registered under Sections 323 and 504 of the IPC on 28.12.2021. The complaint further states that the respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 31.01.2022; however, the said application was dismissed. Aggrieved, he preferred Criminal Revision No.30/2022 before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind, which too came to be dismissed on 19.04.2023. Thereafter, the respondent filed the present private complaint on 15.09.2023.

The learned Magistrate, after recording the respondent No.1’s statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C.(Annexure P/2) and the statement of witness Raghvendra Singh Bhadoriya under Section 202 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P/3), had passed the impugned order dated 03.04.2024 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 323 read with 34, 504, and 506 (Part II) IPC against the petitioners. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners had preferred the present petition seeking quashment of the private complaint (Annexure P/1), all consequential proceedings, and the impugned cognizance order.

Shri Rakesh Kumar Sharma - Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Abhijeet Singh Tomar - Advocate for the petitioners had submitted that the present proceedings constitute a gross abuse of the process of law and have been initiated with a mala fide intention after an unexplained delay of nearly two years from the date of the alleged incident. The complainant’s services had already come to an end on 30.04.2020 and, therefore, there was no occasion for him to be called to the College on 11.12.2021. The allegations made in the private complaint are wholly fabricated, inherently improbable and aimed solely at falsely implicating the petitioners, who are responsible office-bearers and employees of the institution.