IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI

th

ON THE 20 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 51961 of 2024 AJAY KUMAR SUKLA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Pramendra Singh Thakur - Advocate with Shri Anupam Soni - Advocate for the applicant.

Smt. Neetu Pashine - P.L. for the respondent-State.

Shri Vijay Kumar Shukla - Advocate for the respondent no.2.

ORDER The applicant has invoked the provisions of section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 whereby legality and validity of order dated 09/11/2024 (Annexure A/1) has been challenged. While passing the order dated 09/11/2024 the Learned trial court allowed the complaint under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 and has directed the SHO, PS- Chandiya to register an FIR against the applicant for offences punishable under section 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The facts of the case reveal that the respondent no. 2 being a complaint has filed an application under the provisions of section 156 (3) and 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The averments of the complaint reveal that on 06/07/2018 an application for obtaining benefits of Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY) has been submitted by the applicant, herein. The said application has been filed on the basis of false documents and incorrect information. The main bone of contention is that as per the requirement of the PMAY, the applicant who possesses his own land may be provided financial assistance to construct house only for the residential purposes, however, It has been alleged in the complaint that the applicant by manipulating the documents has used plot of his father and enjoyed the benefit of PMAY constructing three shops on the land in question, which is per se illegal and against the purpose of PMAY. Various other grounds related to submitting false documents were also made in the complaint.

3. The learned trial court after summoning the report (Prativaden) from the concerned police station has passed order dated 09/11/2024 whereby a direction has been issued to register FIR against the applicant for the offence punishable under section 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code and in compliance thereof, the police has registered the FIR bearing Crime No. 307/24 dated 20/11/2024. The order of registration of FIR as well dated 09/11/2024 as FIR dated 20/11/2024 have been put to test by filing the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the registration of FIR is an abuse of process of law. It has also been argued that even if entire case is treated as gospel truth even than no case under section 420, 467, 468 & 471 is made out against the applicant. More emphasis has been drawn on police report, stating that the as per police report, no case is made out against the applicant. He further argued that the Magistrate after receiving the complaint under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. is having power to call the report of police and further he can recorded the statement under section 200 of Cr.P.C and thereafter pass the order under section 202 of Cr.P.C. but in the present case, the said procedure has not been adopted by the Magistrate and therefore, order is nullity and without jurisdiction. It has also been argued that the present complaint is nothing but a counter blast in respect of a civil suit pending consideration between the applicant and complainant.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent no.2/complainant has drawn attention of this Hon’ble Court towards an IA No.4414 of 2025 filed under section 340 of the CPRC for taking cognizance against the applicant for making false signature upon various documents produced before this Court. Apart from this, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 as well as the learned Government Advocate has supported the impugned order submitting that no case for grant of relief is made out.

6. Heard the parties at length and perused the material on r