High CourtsSingle Bench

Radha Bai Soni vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 9 April 2026 · Citation: (2026) 04 MP CK 0267

HON’BLE JUDGES
B. P. Sharma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 528 · Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 109(1), 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 296(a), 191(2), 324(4), 331(5), 351(3) · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 482
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 12627 Of 2026
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 328 words

B. P. Sharma, J

1.

This petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing the F.I.R. No. 715/2025 dated 04-12-2025 registered by the Police Station - Barhi Distt.- Katni (M.P.) against the present applicant for the commission of offences punishable under sections 296 (a), 115 (2), 351 (3), 118 (1), 191(2),331(5), 324(4), 117(2), 109(1) of BNS, 2023.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is civil dispute between the parties and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and prays for quashing of the FIR.

3.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4.

Perusal of the record reveals that FIR has been promptly lodged against the petitioner and there is named FIR. Prima facie, offence is made out against the petitioner. What are the offences which are to be made out against the petitioner, is the domain of the trial Court.

5.

Perusal of the entire record reflects that all the issues urged by the petitioner needs to be tried on merits in trial after evidence is adduced by the parties. The issues argued by the petitioner and the same having been refused by the respondent are of such nature that they can be decided only after parties adduced evidence during trial because the question of facts are involved in this case.

6.

It is settled principle of law that inherent power under Section 482 CRPC is to be exercised sparingly with great caution and this court at this stage cannot embark upon meticulous appreciation of documentary evidence produced by both the parties or conduct a mini-trial.

7.

It is clarified that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The trial court shall proceed independently and decide the matter strictly in accordance with law on the basis of evidence adduced before it without being influenced by any observation made in this order.

8.

Resultantly, the petition, is hereby dismissed.