Courtroom Drama Meets Judicial Rebuke: MP HC Tosses Out Petitioner's Wild Rs 200 Cr Claims Against Maruti Suzuki

In a sharply worded order on March 11, 2026 , the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur , presided over by Hon'ble Shri Justice Himanshu Joshi , dismissed Writ Petition No. 6020 of 2026 filed by Dayashankar Pandey. The self-represented petitioner sought police probes into alleged attacks on his family, recovery of over Rs 200 crore in embezzlement from Maruti Suzuki India Limited , and hefty compensation. The court found the claims vague, unsupported, and a clear abuse of process , while sternly criticizing the petitioner's shocking courtroom antics.

From Embezzlement Exposé to Family Tragedy: The Petitioner's Tale

Dayashankar Pandey, appearing in person, accused Maruti Suzuki—a global car manufacturer—of massive financial wrongdoing worth over Rs 200 crore, claiming he exposed it and faced retaliation. He alleged multiple threats and attacks, including a recent car ramming incident causing his wife's miscarriage and an earlier fire attack that left his elder daughter severely disabled, requiring Rs 82 lakh in medical costs. Despite complaints to top authorities like the President of India and state police, Pandey said no action followed; instead, he faced harassment via notices. He demanded impartial investigations, asset recovery, and compensation for himself, his family, the Centre, and Madhya Pradesh government.

This wasn't his first rodeo. Pandey had withdrawn prior petitions (WP Nos. 33318/2025 and 5067/2026) on the same issues, with court directions to pursue statutory remedies—directions he ignored.

Sweeping Accusations vs. Stark Defenses

Petitioner's Side : Pandey painted a picture of corporate conspiracy and police complicity, urging the court under Article 226 to intervene for justice, recovery, and damages amid ongoing family suffering.

State and Maruti's Rebuttal : Deputy Advocate General Vivek Sharma and Senior Advocate Manoj Sharma for Maruti called the petition "vague, misconceived, and imaginary." No FIR copies, complaints, or evidence were annexed. They highlighted Pandey's litigious history, prior withdrawals, and objectionable conduct—like placing a miscarried fetus before the judge's dais on March 9 to "evoke sympathy," as media reports and the order noted. They stressed efficacious remedies under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) , before a Magistrate, not writ jurisdiction .

No Room for Theatrics: Court's Razor-Sharp Legal Reasoning

Justice Joshi methodically dismantled the petition, deeming it "completely vague and bereft of any material particulars." Serious charges of embezzlement and assaults needed evidence, not "sweeping allegations." The court invoked the landmark Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008) 2 SCC 409 , where the Supreme Court discouraged High Courts from entertaining writs or Section 482 CrPC petitions for police inaction, directing instead: first to police under BNSS Sections equivalents of old CrPC 154(3)/36 , then Magistrate under 156(3) [now 175(3) BNSS], or private complaint under Section 200 .

Pandey's serial filings, shifting prayers (from euthanasia to compensation), and ignored remedies screamed " vexatious and speculative litigation ." Writ powers under Article 226 demand bona fides , not emotional ploys.

Key Observations

"The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked on the basis of vague and unsubstantiated allegations."

"Such shifting stands and repeated invocation of the writ jurisdiction of this Court, without placing any cogent supporting evidence or material on record, clearly indicates that the petitioner is indulging in vexatious and speculative litigation ."

"The petitioner had placed a fetus in front of the Court dais during the proceedings apparently with a view to evoke sympathy of the Court. Such an act is highly objectionable, improper and amounts to lowering the dignity and decorum of the Court."

"Justice is administered strictly in accordance with law and on the basis of legally admissible material placed on record, and not on emotional considerations or theatrical conduct in the Courtroom."

"Bringing a miscarried fetus into the Courtroom... is wholly improper and contrary to law... prima facie amounts to offering indignity to a human corpse punishable under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ."

Gavel Falls: Dismissal with a Warning and a Way Forward

"Accordingly, the petition is dismissed." Liberty granted to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate under BNSS Section 175(3) for any police grievances. No costs imposed this time, but Pandey was cautioned against repeats of his "highly objectionable" conduct—potentially criminal under new laws—or face strict action.

This ruling reinforces boundaries on writ access, prioritizing statutory channels for investigation woes and upholding courtroom sanctity. Litigants eyeing High Courts for police lapses must now double-down on evidence and remedies, lest they join the vexatious pile. Media buzz around the fetus incident underscores the order's real-world echo, reminding all: courts run on law, not drama.