The Madhya Pradesh High Court has declined to quash an FIR registered against Bablu Sen in a case involving the alleged kidnapping of a nine-year-old girl. The Court held that at the stage of considering a petition for quashing, it cannot examine disputed facts or conduct a detailed assessment of the evidence when the allegations in the FIR disclose a prima facie offence.
Background of the Case
The case arose from an incident reported on September 26, 2024. According to the prosecution, the complainant had sent her two minor daughters to a nearby shop when the petitioner allegedly took the elder child, aged nine years, into his car after speaking to her and drove away without the consent of her lawful guardian. The child was later found near a temple and allegedly stated that the petitioner had taken her in his vehicle after telling her he would drop her at her uncle's house.
Based on the complaint, Bagsewaniya Police in Bhopal registered Crime No. 545 of 2024 for an offence punishable under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that he had not kidnapped the child. He claimed that he had merely asked her about the location of a person's house and later dropped her near a temple. It was also contended that the FIR was motivated by previous enmity because the complainant had earlier lodged another criminal case against the petitioner's nephew. On this basis, the petitioner sought quashing of the FIR.
The State and the complainant opposed the plea, submitting that the child's statements recorded during the investigation supported the prosecution case and that the charge sheet had already been filed.
Court's Observations
Justice Pramod Kumar Agrawal observed that while exercising inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the High Court is not expected to hold a "mini trial" or evaluate the reliability of evidence.
Referring to the Supreme Court's decisions in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, and Teeja Devi v. State of Rajasthan, the Court reiterated that quashing of criminal proceedings is an exceptional remedy and should be exercised only in rare cases where the FIR does not disclose any cognizable offence.
"The Court observed, 'At this stage, the Court is required only to examine whether the allegations disclose the ingredients of the alleged offence or not.'"
The Court further noted that the allegations in the FIR, along with the child's statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, disclosed a prima facie case under Section 137(2) of the BNS. It also held that the petitioner's plea of previous enmity constituted a defence that could be examined during trial after appreciation of evidence.
Decision
Finding that the FIR and the material collected during investigation disclosed a prima facie offence, the High Court held that no case was made out for exercising its inherent jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, the petition filed by Bablu Sen was dismissed.
Case Details:
Case Title: Bablu Sen v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Case Number: Misc. Criminal Case No. 55549 of 2024
Judge: Justice Pramod Kumar Agrawal
Decision Date: July 1, 2026
