The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that an FIR cannot be quashed merely because it does not mention the specific role attributed to each accused. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 390]

Observing that an FIR is not an encyclopedia containing every particular detail, the bench of Justice Pramod Kumar Agrawal stated;

"It is the contention of learned senior counsel for petitioner that in the F.I.R., no specific role of petitioner is mentioned, therefore F.I.R. should be quashed. This contention cannot be accepted because it is settled law that F.I.R. is not an encyclopedia and cannot contain all the detailed particulars of the crime. It is for the Investigating Agency to collect material during investigation. Therefore if in the F.I.R., there is no detail regarding the role of petitioner in the crime, then on this ground it cannot be held that the petitioner has no role in this matter".

A petition was filed seeking quashing of the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings for cheating (Section 420), criminal breach of trust (Section 409), forgery (Sections 467, 468 and 471), and criminal intimidation (Section 506) of the IPC.

The case originated from a complaint submitted by respondent no. 2. According to the State's submissions, she made the complaint alleging irregularities in the affairs of Chanakya Kautilya Shikshan Samiti regarding scholarship amounts and documents. The petitioner's name was also mentioned in the complaint.

Subsequently, the police took no action, and therefore she approached the JMFC under Section 156(3) CrPC. The court therefore passed an order on February 10, 2014, to register the FIR.

The senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the relevant bank account was in the name of Acropolis Institute of Technology and Research Institute and claimed that the authorized signatories were co-accused Anshuman Tiwari and Ashish Rai and not the petitioner. It was further argued that the alleged amount of ₹1,11,500 had not been deposited into his account.

The senior counsel further relied on enquiry reports which, according to him, did not find any allegation against him. It was claimed that he had resigned from the society before the alleged incident and that handwriting examination had found that the handwriting appearing on the relevant document did not belong to him. It was claimed that he had resigned from the society before the incident.

The counsel for respondent no. 2 argued that the allegations against the petitioner involved allegations of criminal conspiracy and thus, his role could not be examined merely on whether he was an authorised signatory or not. The complainant disputed the petitioner's claim that he had no connection to the Samiti.

The counsel for respondent no. 2 argued that the petitioner himself had filed a caveat petition claiming to be the chairman of the Samiti. The counsel also relied on the report of the Registrar of the Firms and Societies wherein the petitioner allegedly described himself as the founder of the society since 2006.

The court relied on the case of Supriya Jain v. State of Haryana [2023 SCC Online SC 765], and reiterated the scope of jurisdiction of Section 482 CrPC. The bench emphasized that the power under Section 482 CrPC empowers the court to quash the FIR if the allegations do not constitute an offence, but does not permit it to conduct a mini-trial to arrive at such findings.

The bench further relied on the case of Ganga Bai v. Shriram [1990 SCC Online MP 213] and reiterated that fresh evidence is not permissible under Section 482 CrPC.

In the present case, the court noted that the petition could be decided based only on the FIR and report submitted by the police. The court further rejected the petitioner's contention that the FIR was false, noting that the High Court cannot examine truthfulness, sufficiency, and admissibility of the evidence under Section 482 CrPC.

The court noted that the present case contained a disputed question of fact on whether the petitioner was a member of the Samiti or not at the time of the incident. The bench noted that such a disputed question cannot be decided in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC and can only be adjudicated upon by the Trial Court after recording evidence.

Additionally, the bench observed that 24 witnesses have already been examined and that the trial was at an advanced stage. Therefore, the bench deemed it appropriate to dismiss the present petition, noting that no ground was made for interference for quashing of FIR.

Case Title: Dr Pushyamitra Mishra v State of Madhya Pradesh, MCRC-5447-2014

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 390

For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Anil Khare with Advocate Jaywardhan Lunawat

For State: Government Advocate Yogesh Dhande

For Respondent no 2: Advocate Ranjan Pandey

Click here to read/download the Order