MP High Court Refuses To Treat Deceased's Media Statement As Dying Declaration To Register FIR

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has dismissed a plea by the widow of a man who died days after he was allegedly assaulted by police during the Covid-19 lockdown in 2020, holding that she has not been denied a remedy and can lead evidence before the trial court.

Justice Himanshu Joshi, hearing the application under Section 482 CrPC, refused to direct registration of an FIR against the police personnel, upholding the concurrent findings of the courts below that the matter proceed as a complaint case instead.

The applicant, Poonam Kushwaha, is the wife of Banshilal Kushwaha, who died on 20.04.2020. According to her, her husband was returning from his field on 16.04.2020, after feeding a cow, when he was allegedly assaulted by police posted at Police Station Gora Bazar, Jabalpur. He sustained serious injuries, was hospitalised, and succumbed four days later. She alleged that before his death, he spoke to the electronic media and named the police personnel responsible for the assault. The District Administration had granted Rs 50,000 as ex-gratia assistance to the family.

Kushwaha had submitted complaints to the Superintendent of Police on 12.06.2020 and 25.06.2020, placing on record photographs, newspaper cuttings, the merg intimation, panchnama, hospital documents and the post-mortem report. When no FIR was registered, she formally moved the JMFC, Jabalpur, under Section 156(3) CrPC.

The Magistrate, after calling for the police report, found that an inquiry had already been conducted in the merg proceedings and declined to order registration of an FIR, but directed that the application be treated as a complaint under Section 200 CrPC. Her revision against this order was dismissed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, on 17.02.2022, prompting the present plea before the High Court.

Advocate Arvind Kumar Shrivastava, appearing for the applicant, argued that the courts below had failed to appreciate the material on record. He submitted that the deceased's statement to the electronic media, in which he allegedly named the police personnel, amounted to material in the nature of a dying declaration, and that the photographs, medical documents and ex-gratia assistance supported the allegation of assault. He further alleged that the post-mortem report had been manipulated to shield the police personnel.

Advocate Hitendra Golhani, for respondents No.1 to 5, Sub Inspector and Constables, and panel lawyer Somesh Gupta, for the State, opposed the plea, submitting that a full merg investigation, magisterial inquiry and departmental inquiry had already been conducted, with statements recorded, CCTV footage examined and medical and forensic reports obtained. They pointed to an opinion from the Department of Forensic Medicine, NSCB Medical College, Jabalpur, which found no injury at the anal opening and attributed possible bleeding to illness of the kidney, lungs or liver, and to FSL reports which did not disclose any chemical poison. None of these inquiries, they argued, substantiated the assault allegation.

The High Court agreed with the respondents. It held that the Magistrate's course of treating the application as a complaint under Section 200 CrPC was "permissible in law," and that the applicant "has not been denied a remedy and can lead evidence before the Magistrate."

On the dying declaration argument, the Court held that the deceased's alleged statement to the media "cannot, at this stage, be conclusively treated as a dying declaration so as to compel registration of an FIR," adding that its "authenticity, contents and evidentiary value are matters requiring proof." It further observed that ex-gratia assistance "cannot by itself establish homicidal death or involvement of the police personnel."

On the manipulation of the post-mortem report, the Court found the allegation to be "a disputed factual assertion unsupported by any cogent material," noting that it could not undertake a "comparative appreciation" of the medical and forensic material while exercising its inherent jurisdiction.

Holding that no jurisdictional error, perversity or manifest illegality was shown in the impugned orders, the Court dismissed the application, leaving Kushwaha free to pursue her complaint before the Magistrate.

Case Title: Smt. Poonam Kushwaha vs Alok Singh and Others

Date of Order: September 7, 2026

Bench: Justice Himanshu Joshi