The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that public servants cannot evade criminal liability by invoking obedience to superior orders when the act in question is manifestly unlawful. This judgment clarifies the limits of hierarchical compliance under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and reinforces the principle that lawful conduct is non-negotiable, even under command.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Neeraj Rajput, a Constable in the Madhya Pradesh Police, is named as an accused in FIR No. 473/2025 registered at Police Station Lakhanwara, District Seoni, on 14.10.2025. The FIR alleges a large-scale corruption and misappropriation scheme involving the interception of a vehicle carrying Rs. 2,96,50,000 in cash, allegedly recovered during a raid. Instead of depositing the entire amount as per procedure, the raiding team, including the petitioner, is accused of conspiring to misappropriate Rs. 1,45,00,000.
Key Facts
- The raid occurred on 09.10.2025, led by Pooja Pandey, then Sub-Divisional Officer (Police).
- The petitioner was posted as a Constable and was not part of the original raiding team but was directed to join the operation.
- The petitioner allegedly sent a photograph of the intercepted Creta vehicle to co-accused Pooja Pandey via mobile phone.
- Call Detail Records (CDRs) show continuous telephonic contact between the petitioner and co-accused ASI Arpit Bhairam during the relevant period.
- No cash was recovered from the petitioner’s possession.
- The petitioner claims he was merely following orders and did not participate in interception, seizure, or transportation of cash.
- Co-accused statements (Arpit Bhairam, Pooja Pandey, Kedar Singh) allegedly state the petitioner was not present at the scene during the raid.
Procedural History
- 09.10.2025: Alleged raid and cash interception.
- 14.10.2025: FIR No. 473/2025 registered at Police Station Lakhanwara, Seoni.
- 29.04.2026: Petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashment of FIR and all proceedings.
- 16.04.2026: Hearing conducted before the High Court.
- 29.04.2026: Judgment pronounced.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
- Argued he was a subordinate officer acting under direct orders of superior officers.
- Claimed he did not intercept the vehicle, seize cash, or participate in negotiations.
- Asserted that sending a photograph alone, without proof of agreement or intent, cannot establish criminal conspiracy.
- Emphasized absence of recovery from his person and lack of evidence of criminal intent.
- Contended that essential ingredients of Sections 310(2), 126(2), 140(3), 61(2), and 238(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are not satisfied.
For the Respondent/State
- Argued the petition is premature as the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of seeking discharge before the Trial Court.
- Submitted that the material collected - including CDRs and the photograph transmission - establishes active coordination.
- Maintained that the offence is a collective act and cannot be dissected at the quashment stage.
- Relied on multiple Supreme Court judgments to argue that disputed questions of fact cannot be decided under Section 528 BNSS.
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 473/2025 and all consequential proceedings, including investigation and trial, on grounds of absence of prima facie case and lack of criminal intent.
The Legal Issue
Can a subordinate police officer claim immunity from criminal liability under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 by asserting that he acted solely under the orders of a superior officer, when the act allegedly involves misappropriation of seized property and communication indicating coordination?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on the absence of direct participation in the raid, lack of recovery from his person, and the absence of any evidence showing agreement or meeting of minds to establish criminal conspiracy under Section 61(2) of BNS. He argued that sending a photograph is a neutral act, insufficient to infer intent. He cited the principle that mere presence or passive compliance does not constitute participation in a crime. He further contended that the prosecution’s case is based on speculation and not concrete material.
For the Respondent/State
The State countered that the transmission of the vehicle photograph and continuous communication with co-accused establish active involvement in the operation. It argued that the petitioner’s role as a member of the raiding party, even if subordinate, makes him part of a common criminal design. The State emphasized that the existence of an alternative remedy (discharge application) does not bar the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, but the petition fails on merits because the allegations, if true, disclose a prima facie offence.
The Court's Analysis
The Court first addressed the preliminary objection regarding maintainability. It held that while an alternative remedy exists in the form of discharge application before the Trial Court, this does not create an absolute bar to invoking Section 528 BNSS. The jurisdiction under this provision is wide and intended to prevent abuse of process or miscarriage of justice.
The Court then examined the sufficiency of allegations. It noted that the petitioner was part of the raiding party and transmitted a photograph of the intercepted vehicle to the lead accused. This act, though seemingly innocuous, was interpreted as a form of coordination in the context of a larger scheme involving misappropriation of public funds.
"The plea of acting under the directions of a superior officer does not furnish a valid defence where the act complained of is inherently illegal. Obedience to command cannot transmute an unlawful act into a lawful one, nor can it absolve the doer of personal responsibility."
The Court emphasized that public servants are bound not merely to obey orders, but to obey lawful orders. Where an order is manifestly illegal - such as facilitating theft of seized cash - the subordinate has a legal duty to refuse compliance. Participation under the guise of obedience constitutes conscious involvement.
The Court further held that recovery from the accused is not a sine qua non for establishing liability in cases of conspiracy or common intention. The law recognizes collective criminal enterprise, and each participant may be held liable even if no physical possession is established.
The Court concluded that the allegations, taken at face value, prima facie disclose offences under Sections 310(2), 126(2), 140(3), 61(2), and 238(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner’s defence involves disputed questions of fact that require trial and cannot be adjudicated at the quashment stage.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The Court held that the FIR and all consequential proceedings shall continue. No quashment was granted. The Court clarified that its observations are strictly limited to the stage of quashment and shall not prejudice the trial court’s assessment of evidence or merits.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Obedience to Illegal Orders Is Not a Defence
- Public servants, including police personnel, cannot claim immunity by citing superior orders when the act is manifestly unlawful.
- Legal duty to refuse illegal orders is now explicitly affirmed as part of public service ethics under BNS.
- Practitioners must advise clients that compliance with unlawful directives may constitute criminal participation.
Photographs and Communication Can Establish Conspiracy
- Transmission of images or messages during a criminal operation may be sufficient to infer coordination, even without physical involvement.
- Call Detail Records and digital communication are now recognized as critical evidence in establishing common intention.
- Defence strategies must now account for digital footprints as potential proof of active participation.
Prima Facie Case Standard Is Broad at Quashment Stage
- Courts will not require conclusive proof at the quashment stage; only a prima facie case is needed to proceed.
- Absence of recovery from the accused does not automatically negate liability in joint offences.
- Petitioners seeking quashment must demonstrate total absence of any material pointing to an offence - not merely raise plausible deniability.
