IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR

th

ON THE 17 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 1578 of 2026 SONU KUMAR SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sanjay Singh Kaurav - Advocate with Shri Neeraj Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Sunit Kapoor - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.

ORDER The present petition under section 528 of BNSS, 2023 is filed for quashing of FIR registered at Crime no. 424/2025 dated 05.09.2025 at Police Station – Nanakheda , District – Ujjain for the offence punishable under section 296, 115(2), 351(3) and 333 of BNS, 2023.

2. The exposition of facts giving rise to present petition is as under : Praveen Sharma reported to P.S. Nanakheda, Distt. Ujjain that on

05.09.2025, he was at his home. Sonu Sharma entered his house and abused him in filthy language and demanded repayment of loan amount. Praveen Sharma refused to pay the loan amount saying that no outstanding amount remains and objected to his abuses. Sonu Sharma slapped him. Deepak and Ranjeet intervened and rescued him. Sonu Sharma threatened to kill him. On such allegations, P.S. Nanakheda registered FIR for offence punishable u/s 296, 115(2), 351(3) and 333 of BNS, 2023 against the petitioner. The final report has been submitted on completion of investigation.

3. The FIR is assailed in the petition on following grounds :

i) The present FIR is based on a concocted story and has been lodged with an intent to create pressure on the petitioner.

ii) The dispute between the petitioner and the complainant is purely of civil nature which has been given colour of criminal prosecution.

iii) Neither, there is any independent witness to the alleged incident nor any medical evidence is available to substantiate the injury suffered by the complainant.

iv) Complainant, in his statement, had admitted that he had lodged false report against petitioner. A copy of statement recorded by petitioner is submitted with the petition.

On these grounds, it is requested that the FIR bearing Crime no. 424/2025 registered at the Police station, Nanakheda be quashed with all consequential proceedings.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in addition to the grounds, referring to Annexure A-2 i.e. the complaint dated 28.08.2025 submits that the complainant Praveen Sharma has stated that Sonu Sharma is his friend, therefore, there is no possibility of house tress-pass. False FIR is lodged against the petitioner over transaction of loan, which is substantiated by the recording submitted alongwith certificate of the petitioner under Section 63(b) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The FIR against the petitioner deserves to be quashed.

5. Per-contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the petition and contended that the contents of FIR clearly make out the alleged offence. The petition is meritless and deserves to be dismissed.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. The Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 after an elaborate consideration of the matter and after referring to its various earlier decisions, has observed in para 108 as under:- ''108. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power s