Back
Refusal to Quash Kidnapping FIR Against Journalist Under Section 137(2) BNS:
The at Jabalpur, led by Justice Pramod Kumar Agrawal , has dismissed a petition seeking the quashment of an FIR filed against a man identifying as a journalist, who was accused of kidnapping a minor girl. The Court held that the allegations, if accepted, disclosed a , and emphasized that the of the court should not be used to conduct a "" at the stage of investigation.
Case Background On , a mother reported that her nine-year-old and five-year-old daughters were sent to a local shop. It is alleged that the petitioner, Bablu Sen, enticed the older child into his car—which carried the inscription "Bablu Patrakar"—and took her away. Following a search initiated by the mother after a neighbor’s tip, the child was located near a temple. The child subsequently stated that the petitioner had misled her into entering the vehicle, promising to drop her at her uncle's residence. An FIR was registered at P.S. Bagaswaniya, Bhopal under .
Arguments Presented The petitioner’s counsel argued that the allegations were entirely fabricated, stemming from a personal vendetta. It was submitted that the complainant held a grudge against the petitioner’s nephew, Nilesh, who had previously been booked in a separate, serious criminal case involving the same family. The petitioner maintained that he had simply asked the child for directions and dropped her at a temple, suggesting the FIR was an abuse of the legal process.
Conversely, the State and the complainant’s counsel underscored the gravity of the incident. They pointed out that the child’s version of events, as recorded in statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the , clearly implicated the petitioner in a forceful abduction. They argued that because a charge-sheet had already been filed, the legal process should be allowed to run its course.
Legal Analysis and Precedents In reaching its decision, the Court relied heavily on the landmark guidelines laid down by the in State of Haryana vs Bhajanlal (1992) and Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra (2021).
The Court clarified that (or ) is an extraordinary power intended to be used sparingly. The court must not "scuttle" criminal proceedings at the initial stage unless it is clear that no offence is disclosed. Justice Agrawal noted that the judiciary and the police operate in distinct spheres, and the Court is barred from usurping the role of investigators by meticulously appreciating evidence before a trial occurs.
Key Observations The judgment highlighted the limited scope of judicial interference in active investigations:
-
"This Court is of the considered opinion that while exercising the jurisdiction... the Court is not expected to conduct a mini trial or meticulous appreciation of evidence for adjudication of ."
- “The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘’.”
-
"When a prayer for quashment of the FIR is made by the alleged accused... it has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a or not."
-
"At this stage, the Court is required only to examine that whether the allegations disclose the ingredients of the alleged offence or not."
Court's Decision Finding that the FIR and the material collected during the investigation provided a basis for the charges under Section 137(2) of the BNS, the Court dismissed the petition. The case will now proceed to trial, where the petitioner will have the opportunity to present his defense. The ruling reinforces the principle that where there is credible material suggestive of a involving a minor, courts will prioritize the investigative and trial process over the summary quashing of FIRs.
