IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

th

ON THE 6 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 34183 of 2025 SMT LAXMI MONGA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Kamal Kumar Jain - Advocate for the petitioner [P-1].

ORDER This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 / Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of the order dated 20.06.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior in Case No.

RCT 4302/2016.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner (complainant) lodged an FIR on 13.05.2016 at Police Station Madhoganj against respondents No. 2 to 4. On the basis of the said complaint, Crime No. 271/2016 was registered on 16.05.2016 for offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 and 34 of IPC. The FIR was written by ASI Seva Ram at Police Station Madhoganj on the basis of the oral complaint made by the petitioner. The investigation of the case was conducted by SI Ranjit Singh. During investigation, statements of the complainant and other witnesses namely Smt. Bharti, Smt. Ramesh and Sanjay were recorded. After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer found prima facie case against respondents No. 2 to 4 for offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 506/34 IPC and accordingly filed the charge-sheet (Challan) before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior.

3. During trial, the Public Prosecutor moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning ASI Seva Ram, who had written the FIR, as a prosecution witness, as well as for examining the Investigating Officer SI Ranjit Singh, as their evidence was essential for just decision of the case. The learned Trial Court, vide order dated 20.06.2025, dismissed the said application and closed the prosecution evidence. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is arbitrary and against the interest of justice. ASI Seva Ram, who wrote the FIR, is a very important witness to prove that the FIR was lodged by the complainant and that the contents of the FIR were recorded correctly. SI Ranjit Singh, the Investigating Officer, was also a necessary witness to prove the manner of investigation and to prove the documents collected during investigation. Unless these two important witnesses were examined, the prosecution case would suffer serious prejudice and the truth will not come before the Court. Section 311 Cr.P.C. gives wide powers to the Court to summon any witness at any stage if his evidence is necessary for a just decision of the case, but the learned Trial Court rejected the application only on technical grounds and without properly considering the importance of the witnesses, therefore, impugned order has resulted in failure of justice and therefore deserves to be set aside.

5. It has been argued on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner that ASI Seva Ram is the person who wrote the FIR on the basis of the statement made by the complainant. His evidence is necessary to prove that the FIR was actually lodged, that the contents of the FIR were written as stated by the complainant, and that there is no manipulation or fabrication in the FIR. Merely because the complainant has stated in her evidence that she lodged the report, it does not mean that the writer of the FIR is not required to be examined. It has further been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the Investigating Officer, SI Ranjit Singh, conducted the entire investigation, collected evidence, recorded statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and filed the charge-sheet. Without his examination, the investigation cannot be proved, the documents collected during investigation cannot be properly proved, and the defence will get undue advan