High Court Cannot Conduct A Mini-Trial While Quashing FIR, Says MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to quash a criminal case over alleged forgery and misappropriation of student scholarship money linked to a Bhopal education society, holding that disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in inherent-jurisdiction proceedings, especially when the trial is at an advanced stage.

Justice Pramod Kumar Agrawal dismissed a petition filed by Dr. Pushyamitra Mishra under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to set aside FIR No. 98/2014 registered at Ratibad police station, Bhopal, and consequential proceedings. The FIR invokes Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The case began with a complaint by Richa Singh, respondent No. 2, dated December 4, 2013. When police took no action, she approached the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal, under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, and the FIR was registered on the magistrate's direction.

Senior Advocate Anil Khare, appearing with advocate Jaywardhan Lunawat for the petitioner, argued that the only allegation against Mishra was of acting with common intention alongside co-accused, without any specific role attributed to him. He submitted that charges under Sections 406 and 409 had not been framed, that no student had complained of misappropriation, and that the bank account in question was operated by co-accused Anshuman Tiwari and Ashish Rai, not the petitioner.

It was also argued that enquiry reports found nothing against Mishra, that he had resigned from the society before the incident, and that handwriting comparison showed the disputed documents were not in his hand.

Advocate Vivek Ranjan Pandey, appearing for the complainant, countered that Section 120-B, dealing with criminal conspiracy, had also been invoked. He pointed out that Mishra had filed a caveat describing himself as the society's Chairman, and that a Registrar of Firms and Societies order dated March 11, 2026 recorded him as its founder since 2006. He alleged that accounts were opened by forging the complainant's signature, and told the court that the petitioner had been convicted by a special CBI court in Raipur in another case.

Government Advocate Yogesh Dhande, for the State, opposed the plea, submitting that Mishra was named in the complaint, was present in the college on the date of the incident, and had signed as a witness when a committee was constituted in 2013.

The court began by reiterating that the power to quash must be used sparingly, relying on Supreme Court rulings including Supriya Jain v. State of Haryana. Justice Agrawal noted that an FIR can be quashed if the allegations disclose no offence, but stressed that "it is not permissible for it to conduct a mini-trial to arrive at such findings."

Rejecting the argument that the FIR did not spell out the petitioner's role, the court observed that "F.I.R. is not an encyclopedia and cannot contain all the detailed particulars of the crime". Collecting material is the investigating agency's job, it said.

On the claim that Mishra had resigned before the incident, the court pointed to his caveat describing himself as Chairman and held that his membership at the relevant time was a disputed question of fact. "Such disputed question cannot be decided in a proceeding under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and it will be decided by the Trial Court after recording of the evidence during trial," it held.

More than 24 prosecution witnesses have already been examined. "The truthfulness and credibility of these witnesses will be assessed by the Trial Court during appreciation of evidence," the court said.

Considering the advanced stage of the trial, the court concluded that "no ground is made out for quashing the FIR or the criminal proceedings in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C."

It clarified that its observations were confined to deciding the petition and were not an expression on the merits, directing the Trial Court to proceed "uninfluenced by any observations made by this Court."

Case Title: Dr. Pushyamitra Mishra vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Judgment Date: September 25, 2026

Bench: Justice Pramod Kumar Agrawal