The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to quash an FIR lodged against a man stated to be a journalist, accused of kidnapping a minor girl observing that the case prima facie disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence and that the child's statement supported the prosecution's case. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 272]

The petitioner had sought quashing of an FIR for kidnapping under Section 137(2) BNS against him. The prosecution alleged that on September 26, 2024, the complainant sent her two minor daughters, aged 9 and 5 years, to a nearby shop to purchase household items. The petitioner allegedly enticed the 9-year-old girl into his car having the inscription 'Bablu Patrakar' and took her away. Upon the neighbour's information, the complainant found her daughter near a temple. A complaint was thereafter lodged against him.

The bench of Justice Pramod Kumar Agrawal observed;

"In the present case, in FIR, it is mentioned that petitioner enticed and took away the 9 years old girl forcibly in his car without the consent of his parents (law full guardian). The child in her statement under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C., has deposed against the petitioner and support the prosecution case. At this stage, the Court is required only to examine that whether the allegations disclose the ingredients of the alleged offence or not".

The counsel for the petitioner argued that he did not kidnap the child, but merely asked whether she knew one Ravi, after which the child sat in the car, and he dropped her off in front of the temple. The counsel further argued that the child's mother had previously lodged a complaint against Nilesh (nephew of the petitioner) for rape, who was granted bail by the sessions court.

The counsel argued that the case was false and filed over a prior enmity. It was argued that the allegations stated in the FIR were omnibus in nature and FIR must be quashed.

The counsel for the complainant argued that the petitioner took the 9-year-old child without the consent of the lawful guardian, which fulfils the requirements of Section 137 BNS. The counsel for the State argued that the child was forcibly abducted, as deposed in the child's statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC.

The court reiterated that, in a prayer for quashment of FIR, the court needs to examine whether the allegations disclose the commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court further clarified the limited scope of interference under Section 482 CrPC. The court noted that it should be vigilant and interfere only in rare of the rarest cases where, prima facie, looking at the FIR discloses the commission of no offence.

Therefore, the bench dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Bablu Sen v State of Madhya Pradesh, MCRC-55549-2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 272

For Petitioner: Advocate Samar Singh Rajput

For State: Government Advocate Geeta Yadav

For Complainant: Advocate Srajan Narang

Click here to read/download the Order