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

th

ON THE 12 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 9228 of 2015 SUMITRA BAI SHARMA AND OTHERS Versus JAGDISH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.

ORDER This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of the order dated 09.10.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raghogarh, District Guna in Complaint Case No. 2014, whereby the learned Magistrate has called for a report from respondent No.2 with regard to the complaint made by respondent No.1 against the petitioners and other accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. The respondent no.1 filed a private complaint before the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raghogarh, District Guna, alleging offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, 120-B read with Section 34 IPC against the present petitioners and other accused persons. In the said complaint, it has been alleged that the petitioners, in their capacity as public servants, have misappropriated (defalcated)

Panchayat funds under the pretext of payment of wages to labourers under the Employment Guarantee Scheme. The petitioners committed forgery and prepared false documents to support such alleged payments, and for that purpose, an account was opened in ICICI Bank, Guna. The complainant has also stated that his father, namely Bega Lal Kushwah, had died in the year 2002, but even thereafter, amounts were allegedly shown as paid to him under the scheme, which indicates misappropriation. On the basis of these allegations, the complainant has attempted to implicate the petitioners along with other persons by alleging criminal conspiracy. The complaint was presented before the Learned JMFC on 24.09.2014. Instead of examining the complainant and his witnesses as required under law, the Learned Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 09.10.2014, whereby a direction was issued to Respondent No.2 to submit a report regarding the allegations made in the complaint. The Learned Magistrate has passed the said order without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Sections 200, 202 and

203 CrPC, therefore, is required to be set aside.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the Learned Magistrate is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The Learned Magistrate has failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 200 CrPC, which requires examination of the complainant on oath before proceeding further. It is submitted that without conducting such examination, the Learned Magistrate could not have directed any inquiry or called for a report, as has been done in the present case. Even for ordering an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC, the Magistrate is required to apply judicial mind and record reasons, which is completely absent in the impugned order. It is submitted that the impugned order passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class is contrary to the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure. As per Section 200 CrPC, it is compulsory for the Magistrate to examine the complainant on oath at the very beginning. Only after such examination, the Magistrate may proceed further in accordance with law. After examining the complainant, the Magistrate may also examine the witnesses produced by the complainant, if any, to verify the truthfulness of the allegations. Only after following the above procedure and applying judicial mind, if the Magistrate finds it necessary, he may order an inquiry or investigation under Section 202 CrPC. In the present case, the Learned Magistrate has not examined the complainant or any witnesses and has straight away directed the police authority (Respondent No.2