IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA

th

ON THE 18 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 20465 of 2016 SUDHIR KHANDEKAR Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Vikash Gupta - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Sachindra Raghuwanshi - Panel Lawyer for the State.

ORDER This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR bearing Crime No.433/2006 dated 16.09.2006, registered at Police Station-Pipariya, District-Hoshangabad (M.P.), for offences punishable under Sections 409, 34 of Indian Penal Code as well as quashing of all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including Case bearing RCT No.175/2007 (arising out of FIR bearing Crime No.433/2006), which is pending for adjudication before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Pipariya, Hoshangabad (MP).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the allegations, an amount of Rs.14,06,914/- is alleged to have been misappropriated by the petitioner and excess food grains are alleged to have been distributed. It is further submitted that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was working as the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pipariya and was a government servant. Therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cognizance could not have been taken against the petitioner without obtaining prior sanction for prosecution. It is further submitted that even if the allegations made in the complaint or FIR are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, no prima facie offence is made out against the petitioner. Hence, learned trial Court has committed error in taking cognizance against the petitioner in the absence of mandatory sanction and in the absence of material disclosing the commission of any offence. In view of the above, it is therefore prayed that FIR in question as well as all consequential proceedings including the proceedings pending before Trial Court at Bhopal against the petitioners may be quashed.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that FIR was registered pursuant to a detailed inquiry wherein financial irregularities and misappropriation of funds were found during the petitioner’s tenure as Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pipariya. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court and learned trial Court has rightly taken cognizance after due application of mind. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been absconding for several years; therefore, a perpetual warrant has been issued against him by the trial Court. Hence, it is prayed that the present petition, being devoid of merit, be dismissed.

4. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available as well as in the case diary.

5. Upon a perusal of the FIR and the material placed on record, this Court finds that there are clear and specific allegations against the petitioners regarding misappropriation of government money. The submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner give rise to disputed questions of fact, which cannot be examined or adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 of CrPC. Such issues can be determined only after the parties adduce their evidence before the Trial Court. At this stage, the allegations disclosed in the FIR prima facie constitute the offences alleged and no ground is made out for exercising the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

6. This Court is of the view that all issues urged by the petitioner require a trial on merits, after evidence is adduced by the parties. In other words, the contentions of the petitioner, which have been opposed by the State, can be m