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

th

ON THE 17 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 45408 of 2024 RAMGOPAL SAHU @ GOPAL SAHU Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Sukhendra Singh- Advocate for petitioner through VC.

Ms. Alka Singh - PL for respondent/State.

ORDER Heard on IA No. 27832/24, an application for exemption from filing certified copy of the charge-sheet. Since, case diary is available and counsel has already filed the copy of the charge-sheet therefore, IA is allowed and petitioner is exempted to file the certified copy of the charge-sheet.

2. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS (Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C.) for quashing of the charge-sheet filed by the police of the Police Station, Gadarwara District Narsinghpur in connection with Crime No.451/2024 dated 07-05-2024 registered under sections 379, 467, 468, 471, 34 and 411 of the IPC and under Section 136 of the Electricity Act and ensued proceedings thereon.

3. The counsel for the petitioner contends that in the present case impugned FIR was lodged on 07-05-2024 at 21:46 PM vide FIR No.451/2024 with the Police Station, Gadarwara District Narsinghpur alleging inter alia that when the complainant went to his field on 06-05-2024 at about 10:00 a.m, he found that three persons were running from the spot. Then the complainant made an effort to switch on the transformer, but the same did not start. Upon its inspection it was found that 65 liters of oil from the transformer value of which was Rs.8500/-, was stolen. It is contended by the counsel that later on, a TIP was conducted which is contained in Annexure-A/2, and the complainant identified three persons, who had committed the offence, namely, Amit Kumar, Raghuvir Kushwaha and Rambabu @ Bada bhai. This TIP was in tune with the FIR, inasmuch as in the FIR also there was mention of the names of three persons only by the complainant. The counsel contends that if the FIR was against three persons, three persons were duly identified in the TIP, implication of the present petitioner was unsustainable.

4. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner, that without there being any basis, the present petitioner has been implicated and, therefore, the entire prosecution so launched against the present petitioner deserves to be quashed.

5. Per contra, counsel for the State submits that instant petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. In the present case, three accused persons were in collusion with other person also, and even the stolen oil was sold to other persons, who have been made accused in the present case. The stand put forth on behalf of the petitioner cannot be gone into at this stage, and the same is required to be considered by the trial Court during course of trial. Hence, at this stage no interference in the proceedings is warranted, and the instant petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, a perusal of the record reflects that in the FIR, it was clearly mentioned by the complainant that three persons upon finding them fled from the spot and those three persons were duly identified by the complainant in the TIP. The TIP is on the record. There is memorandum of Ankit Sahu, and in the said memorandum it is mentioned by Ankit Sahu that Raghuvir Kushwaha, Dashrath Kushwaha, Rambabu Kushwaha and the present petitioner had made a plan to steal the transformer oil. On the basis of the said memorandum, the present petitioner has been implicated. Apart from the said memorandum, there is no mention of the name of the present petitioner. The memorandum of the co-accused itself cannot be made basis to implicate the present petitioner.

7. Undisputedly, only three persons were found on the spot by the complainant himself, and the complainant duly identified those three persons in the TIP. The present petitioner was not one of those three persons and, theref