By invoking inherent powers of this Court, the present petition has been preferred by petitioners No.1 to 4, namely, Satya Ahirwar, Munesh Ahirwar, Sunil Kumar and Suresh Ahirwar respectively under Section 528 of BNSS/482 of CrPC seeking quashment of F.I.R. bearing Crime No.328 of 2025 registered at Police Station Aron, District Guna (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 3(5) AND 117(2) of BNS, 2023 and all consequential criminal proceedings initiated therefrom.

As per prosecution story, on the basis of information received from Civil Hospital, Aron, Head Constable Jaydev Singh Yadav brought the Dehati Nalishi to Police Station Aron for registration of offence bearing Crime No. 0/2025 under Sections 109, 296, 115(2), 118(1), 191(2), 191(3), 190 of the BNS and Sections 3(1)(d), 3(1)(ch), 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Satya @ Satyanarayan (petitioner No.1), aged about 26 years, son of Brihmadas Ahirwar , resident of Village Gehunkheda, Police Station Aron, while undergoing treatment in injured condition at Civil Hospital, Aron, lodged an oral report alleging that on 28.06.2025 at about 3:30 PM, he along with his father Brihadas, and his uncles Suresh (petitioner No.2), Sumesh (Munesh)/(petitioner No.2), and Sunil Ahirwar (petitioner No.3) were sitting outside their milk dairy plant and conversing. At that time, the accused persons, namely, 1. Raghuveer s/o Diman Singh, 2. Lakhan s/o Diman Singh, 3. Mukesh @ Bhura s/o Diman Singh, 4. Veer Singh s/o Diman Singh, 5.Ramswaroop Kori s/o Misrilal, 6. Bhola @ Kishan s/o Amar Singh, 7. Nikhil Kori, s/o Santosh 8. Abhishek s/o Mukesh, 9. Shiva s/o Amar Singh, 10. Mangal s/o Lakhan, 11. Ravi s/o Narvada Prasad, 12. Nitesh s/o Purushottam, 13. Vishal s/o Purushottam, 14. Santosh s/o Veer Singh, 15. Kamal Singh s/o Diman Singh, 16. Amar Singh s/o Veer Singh, 17. Shivam s/o Mukesh (caste: Bunkar/Fori), 18. Ajay s/o Balwant Prajapati, 19. Chhotu s/o Balwant Bunkar, all residents of Village Gehunkheda, along with 4--5 other associates, allegedly arrived together on an old Swaraj 733 FE tractor with a yellow-painted trolley, armed with iron rods, axes (farsa), and lathis. It was alleged that due to previous enmity, the accused persons started abusing the complainant and his family members in filthy language. When the complainant and his father objected to the abuses, accused Lakhan, Abhishek, Mukesh @ Bhura, Shivam, and Ravi Kori allegedly assaulted the complainant's father with iron rods with an intention to kill him, causing injuries on his head, hands, legs, and abdomen, as a result of which he fell down and started bleeding from his head.

When uncle Suresh (petitioner No.4), Sunil (petitioner No.3), Munesh (petitioner No.2), and the complainant(petitioner No.1) attempted to rescue him, Santosh allegedly assaulted Suresh (petitioner No.4) with a farsa, while Ramswaroop, Raghuveer, Amar Singh, and Veer Singh assaulted him with lathis, causing injuries to his head, left shoulder, and left arm, resulting in bleeding. It was further alleged that Kamal Singh, Ravi Kori, Vishal Kori, and Nitesh Kori assaulted uncle Sunil (petitioner No.3) with chain-sprocket iron rod-like weapons, causing injuries to his head and mouth, and fracturing his right hand. Similarly, Shiva, Mangal, Bhola, and Nikhil Kori allegedly assaulted uncle Munesh (petitioner No.2) with lathis, causing injuries to his hands, legs, and back. The complainant further alleged that Lakhan, Abhishek, Mukesh, Chhotu Prajapati, Ajay Prajapati, and 4--5 other associates assaulted him with iron rods and lathis, caused injuries to his head and nose, bleeding, and fractures to his right hand and both legs below the knees. All the accused persons, forming an unlawful assembly and armed with deadly weapons, assaulted the complainant and his family members with an intention to cause death and inflicted grievous injuries. It was further alleged that upon hearing the commotion, villagers including Gajraj Singh, Sudhir, Gopal, Nannulal, Bhagwat, and Poorat Singh arrived at the spot and intervened, after which the accused persons fled from the scene along with the tractor. Thereafter, the injured persons were taken by their family members to Civil Hospital, Aron for treatment, where the report was lodged and subsequently the crime was registered. This constitutes the prosecution story as reflected from the Dehati Nalishi and FIR dated 26.09.2025 for the purpose of adjudication of the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioners No. 1 to 4, namely, Satya Ahirwar, Munesh Ahirwar, Sunil Kumar and Suresh Ahirwar, argued that the present criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 0328 dated 08.07.2025 registered at Police Station Aron, District Guna, are manifestly attended with mala fide intention and constitute a clear counterblast to FIR No. 0314 dated 28.06.2025 lodged by the Petitioners against Respondent No. 2 and other co- accused persons for grave and heinous offences including murder. The impugned FIR has been instituted only after the arrest of nineteen accused persons in the earlier case and after the fatal assault upon the father of Petitioner No. 1, thereby demonstrating that it is a retaliatory and vindictive measure intended solely to pressurize and harass the Petitioners.

It is submitted that the genesis of the incident has been deliberately suppressed in the impugned FIR. The true sequence of events reveals that on 28.06.2025 Respondent No. 2 and his associates, armed with iron rods, lathis, axes and other deadly weapons, formed an unlawful assembly and brutally assaulted the Petitioners and their family members. Late Brahmdas Ahirwar, father of Petitioner No. 1, sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the same. The Petitioners themselves suffered grievous injuries including fractures and bleeding head injuries and were medically examined and treated at Civil Hospital, Aron and thereafter referred for further treatment.

The medical documents, seizure memos, arrest of nineteen accused persons and the charge sheet filed in FIR No. 0314/2025 conclusively establish that the Petitioners were victims of a murderous assault and not aggressors.

In stark contrast, the impugned FIR No. 0328/2025 was registered ten days after the alleged incident and only after the principal accused in the murder case had been taken into custody. The alleged complaint dated 01.07.2025 surfaced belatedly and the delay in registration remains wholly unexplained. Such inordinate delay itself casts serious doubt on the authenticity of the allegations and clearly indicates that the impugned FIR has been fabricated to create a counter narrative and to dilute the gravity of the offences committed by Respondent No. 2 and his associates.

It is further submitted that the allegations made in the impugned FIR are omnibus, vague and devoid of specific overt acts attributable individually to the present Petitioners. Bald and sweeping allegations have been made without any independent corroboration. No weapon has been recovered from any of the Petitioners. The house search memo categorically records that no incriminating material or weapon was seized. The medical documents relied upon by the Respondent side do not substantiate the allegation that the Petitioners inflicted grievous injuries. Except for minor and inconsequential observations in respect of one individual, no serious injury has been medically established. Significantly, no medical record has been produced to demonstrate any injury to Amar Singh, who is alleged to have been attacked. These material contradictions completely undermine the prosecution case in the impugned FIR.

It is respectfully submitted that the existence of a long-standing land dispute has been exploited by the Respondent side to give a criminal colour to what is essentially a civil disagreement regarding possession and cultivation. The allegation that the Petitioners were ploughing the land of the complainant is false and concocted. In fact, as reflected in the earlier FIR lodged promptly from the hospital, the Petitioners were present near their dairy/warehouse premises when they were attacked by the Respondent side. The contemporaneous medical evidence and official press note issued by the Superintendent of Police, Guna, corroborate the Petitioners' version and clearly establish that the Respondent side were the aggressors.

It defies logic and ordinary human conduct to suggest that four severely injured individuals, including one who had just lost his father in a fatal assault, could have voluntarily inflicted grievous injuries upon a larger group of nineteen armed persons. The final report in the impugned FIR implicates only four Petitioners, whereas in the connected case nineteen accused persons have been charge-sheeted. The inherent improbability of the Respondent's version further demonstrates the mala fide nature of the impugned proceedings.

It is also submitted that the impugned FIR has been maliciously engineered to obstruct Petitioner No. 1 from securing compassionate appointment consequent upon the death of his father, who was serving as a Government Teacher. The pendency of a criminal case adversely affects his eligibility and reputation. The timing and circumstances of registration of the impugned FIR unmistakably point towards a deliberate design to cause harassment and prejudice.

It is further submitted that the investigation in the impugned FIR is one-sided and biased. All cited witnesses are closely related to Respondent No. 2 and other accused persons, and no independent witness has been examined. Material contradictions between medical evidence and allegations have been ignored. Such an investigation cannot form the basis of a fair and impartial criminal prosecution.

It is a settled principle of law, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, that criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence, or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide intention and instituted with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance. The present case squarely falls within the parameters so laid down. The uncontroverted material on record overwhelmingly supports the Petitioners' version and renders the impugned FIR wholly untenable.

The continuation of proceedings pursuant to FIR No. 0328/2025 would therefore amount to gross abuse of the process of law and would result in miscarriage of justice. The Petitioners have no other efficacious remedy except to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The present Petition has been filed bona fide and in the interest of justice, and this Hon'ble Court has the requisite jurisdiction to grant the relief sought.

In view of the aforesaid facts and submissions, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash FIR No. 0328/2025 dated 08.07.2025 registered at Police Station Aron, District Guna, Madhya Pradesh, along with the consequential charge sheet and all further proceedings arising therefrom against the present Petitioners, in the interest of justice.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that the present Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. The impugned FIR No. 0328/2025 dated 08.07.2025 has been registered on the basis of a written complaint disclosing commission of cognizable offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The allegations contained therein, when taken at face value, clearly disclose the commission of offences and therefore warrant a full-fledged trial. It is settled law that at the stage of quashing, this Hon'ble Court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or adjudicate disputed questions of fact.

It is further submitted that the existence of a cross-case arising out of the same incident does not ipso facto render either FIR liable to be quashed. Both versions of the occurrence are required to be investigated independently and adjudicated on the basis of evidence led before the trial Court. The defence taken by the Petitioners regarding delay, medical inconsistencies, or alleged improbabilities are all matters of evidence which can only be examined during trial and not in proceedings invoking inherent jurisdiction.

It is therefore submitted that the charge sheet has already been filed after due investigation, statements of witnesses have been recorded, and sufficient material has been collected to proceed against the Petitioners. The inherent powers of this Court are to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional circumstances, which are not made out in the present case. Accordingly, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

Shri Devraj Dixit, Advocate for Respondent No.4, submitted that he has no concern with the present matter and does not wish to press any arguments Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is trite law that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution, only to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice. The principles governing the exercise of such power have been authoritatively laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein illustrative categories were enumerated where quashing of criminal proceedings would be justified, including cases where the allegations in the FIR do not prima facie constitute any offence, or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide intention and instituted with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance.

The law has been further reiterated in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that proceedings can be quashed where there is a legal bar to institution, or where the allegations even if accepted in entirety do not constitute the offence alleged, or where the allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person could ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Similarly, in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque, (2005) 1 SCC 122, it was held that where criminal proceedings are initiated with mala fide intention or to wreak vengeance, the High Court would be justified in exercising its inherent powers.

In the present case, the record unmistakably reveals that FIR No. 0314/2025 was registered immediately after the incident dated 28.06.2025 in which late Brahmdas Ahirwar, father of petitioner No.1, suffered fatal injuries. Nineteen accused persons were arrested, weapons were seized, medical and post-mortem reports were collected, and a detailed charge sheet has been filed. The contemporaneous medical evidence clearly demonstrates that the petitioners themselves sustained grievous injuries during the occurrence.

In contrast, the impugned FIR No. 0328/2025 was registered on 08.07.2025 on the basis of an alleged complaint dated 01.07.2025, after the arrest of the accused persons in the earlier FIR. The delay remains unexplained. The allegations against the present Petitioners are general and omnibus, lacking specific attribution of overt acts. No weapon has been recovered from the Petitioners. The house search memo records absence of recovery. The medical material relied upon in the impugned case does not substantiate the allegation of grievous assault by the Petitioners. The improbability of four injured persons, one of whom had just lost his father in a fatal assault, voluntarily causing serious injuries to a larger group of nineteen armed persons, renders the prosecution version inherently doubtful.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, emphasized that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and the criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. Likewise, in Necharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, while cautioning that quashing should be exercised sparingly, the Court also reiterated that where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is manifestly attended with mala fides, the High Court would be justified in exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

In the facts of the present case, the chronology of events, the existence of a prior FIR involving a fatal assault, the unexplained delay in registration of the impugned FIR, absence of recovery, lack of credible medical corroboration and the apparent retaliatory intent cumulatively establish that the impugned proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide intention and constitute an abuse of the process of law. Continuation of such proceedings would result in grave miscarriage of justice.

This Court is therefore satisfied that the present case squarely falls within the parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra), R.P. Kapur (supra), and other binding precedents governing the exercise of inherent powers.

Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is allowed. FIR No. 0328/2025 dated 08.07.2025 registered at Police Station Aron, District Guna, Madhya Pradesh, along with the charge sheet dated 26.09.2025 and all consequential proceedings pending before the learned JMFC Court, Guna, insofar as they relate to the present petitioners, stand quashed.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.