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

th

ON THE 17 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 6675 of 2017 VIPIN KUMAR AGRAWAL AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Manikant Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Sachindra Raghuvanshi - PL for State.

Shri Shivam Sharma - Advocate for respondent No.2.

ORDER The petitioners, being aggrieved by the FIR No.744/2014 registered at Police Station Harda, District Harda, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 294 & 506-B of the IPC, have filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of the aforesaid FIR and charge-sheet filed in ST No.98/2016, pending before the Court of ADJ Harda (M.P.).

2. The respondent No.2 submitted a complaint to the IG Harda, which was forwarded to the SP Harda. The same was again forwarded to the ASP, then P. S: Harda, and thereafter lodged an FIR against the petitioner. As per the written complaint the complainant was a Director in a Company which is private limited company named as M/s. Nikhil Sugar Limited Harda. He was actively associate on the working of the Company and the petitioners are Board of Directors of the same Company. They had prepared a forged resignation letter in the name of respondent No.2 and signed the same putting forged signature. By practicing fraud, they had removed the respondent No.2 from the post of Director as well as abused and threatened of dire consequences. Cash credit limit from Rs. 14.75 Crore to Rs. 16.89 Crore was sanctioned to the bank was enhanced and certain shares were also transferred in in the name of their family members.

3. It is submitted by the counsel of the petitioners that, the complainant Natwarlal forwarded a complaint on 10.10.2014 to the Inspector General of Police Hoshangabad. He did not lodge any complaint at police station, Harda, neither did he submit any complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Harda. He has also not explained any cogent reason why the report was not lodged at the police station or sent to the Superintendent of Police. Additional Inspector General of Police, Hoshangabad directed the Additional Superintendent of Police Harda to conduct an inquiry on the complaint of Natwarlal. No inquiry was conducted by the Additional Superintendent of Police. The Police did not verify the fact that whether the signature on the resignation letter submitted by Natwarlal was genuine or not. The applicants submitted a report of handwriting expert J. L. Rathor. It is mentioned in the report that signature on the resignation of respondent No.2 is genuine. Apart from this Mr. Satya Narayan Goel and Shrikrishna Agrawal also resigned along with the complainant and tendered the affidavits. They deposed that they along with the complainant had tendered their resignation letters.

4. It is submitted that, the concerned company is in loss of Rs.32 Cr.

and if the applicant is a Director then, there is no reason to escape from his liability of the loss incurred in the concerned company. The complainant was not an active director of the company, but a sleeping director and has been working on ‘no profit-no loss’ basis. If he wants to remain the director of the company, he is very much allowed to do so. It is mentioned here that in view of the transactions taken place amongst the complainant and the petitioners the competent authority to deal with the issues is Registrar of Companies before whom the petitioners have already stated that the complainant if wishes may join again as a Director in the Company. In this regard, the petitioners has already made a representation to the concerning police officials and brought into his knowledge as per Annexure P/7.

5. It is further submitted that, during the course of investigation, the petitioners gave a detailed statement and representation and brought into the knowledge of the police authorities that, after his re