IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

th

ON THE 8 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 57799 of 2025

GURUDAYAL KUKREJA

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Vineet Saxena - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Brijesh Kumar Tyagi - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

ORDER petitioner and causing him mental, social, and reputational injury, without any genuine or lawful basis. During the course of investigation, the petitioner furnished substantial material, documentary evidence, and statements before the Investigating Officer, which clearly established that the complaint was false, fabricated, and motivated by malice. Upon due consideration of all relevant facts and evidence placed on record by the petitioner, the Police/Investigating Officer found the complaint to be baseless. The investigation further revealed that the complainant has a history of lodging similar false and frivolous complaints against other individuals. In view of the aforesaid findings, the Investigating Officer prepared an Expunge/Closure Report No. 05/2023 dated 05.04.2023, concluding that no offence was made out and recommending closure of the case as false. A copy of the said report was received by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act. However, despite the lapse of a considerable period since the finalization of the said report, the same has not been submitted before the Learned Trial Court till date, resulting in undue delay in the conclusion of proceedings and causing continued and unjustified harassment to the petitioner.

This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.(528 of BNSS) has been

filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-

a) to the concerned Police Issue necessary direction Station/Investigating Officer to immediately submit the Expunge/Closure Report No. 05/2023 dated 05.04.2023 with respect to the offence in Crime No. 0407/2020 under Sections 506, 509, 34 of IPC and Sections 67, 67a and 66E of IT Act, 2008, before the Ld. Trial Court, in connection with the complaint

lodged by the complainant/respondent no. 5;

b) Pass any other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem

fit and proper in the interest of justice.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

complainant/respondent no. 5 has falsely implicated the petitioner in the aforesaid crime at the behest and instigation of one Shri Manmohan Kant Samadhiya, with whom the petitioner has long-standing personal enmity and pending disputes. The present complaint was maliciously lodged by the complainant/respondent no. 5 with the sole intention of harassing the

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that mere preparation of a closure/expunge report does not confer any enforceable right upon the petitioner unless the same is scrutinized, approved, and formally placed before the jurisdictional Trial Court in accordance with law. It is argued that the authority to accept, reject, or issue further directions on a closure report vests exclusively with the Learned Magistrate, and no writ of mandamus can be issued directing the Investigating Officer to file such report in a particular manner. On these grounds, dismissal of the petition is sought.

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

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in D. Venkatasubramaniam v. M.K.

Mohan Krishnamachari, (2009) 10 SCC 488, has categorically held that investigation of a crime lies within the exclusive domain of the police and that courts, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., ought not to interfere or guide the investigating agency as to the manner in which the investigation should be conducted. It has been further emphasized that the inherent powers of the High Court are to be exercised sparingly, with caution, and only to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court.

6. In light of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement, this Cou