The order was passed by Justice B.P. Sharma during a hearing on Saturday, setting aside the FIR lodged at Bijadandi police station in Mandla district against petitioner Shankar Lal Gunani. The court directed that copies of the order be sent to the Mandla Superintendent of Police, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and the station in-charge concerned.

The case stemmed from a violent attack on January 13, 2025, when Gunani, a trader from Nayagaon in Jabalpur, was assaulted near Barela while returning home with his driver and a security guard. According to his complaint to the district collector and the SP, Gunani had earlier accused Senti Barmaiya and Kapil Sahu—both residents of Mandla—of illegal sand mining under alleged political patronage and said he had received death threats after approaching the police.

Gunani alleged that his car was intercepted and he was brutally attacked, suffering severe head injuries that required more than 40 stitches. He was rushed to a private hospital in Jabalpur, where he remained in critical condition and unconscious for two days, his counsel told the court.

Despite this, an FIR was registered against Gunani on January 14 at Bijadandi police station on a complaint filed by Kapil Sahu’s mother, Mamta Sahu. The complaint alleged that Gunani had reached her house in Mandla with armed men, vandalised the premises, set it on fire, issued threats, and fled.

Examining the record, the High Court found the allegations “unnatural and unbelievable,” noting that it was implausible for a critically injured person to be present at two locations nearly 40 km apart within minutes. The court also questioned the absence of any preliminary inquiry before the FIR was registered and expressed surprise that police proceeded against a person hospitalised in the ICU.

Justice Sharma observed that criminal law cannot be used for revenge and held that the FIR appeared to be a retaliatory action following Gunani’s earlier complaint. The court also flagged inconsistencies in the complainant’s version, including the claim that the alleged assailant disclosed his own identity during the offence.

Consequently, the FIR registered under Sections 296, 351, 324 and 326 of the IPC was quashed. The court’s observations raise serious concerns about investigative diligence and accountability. Notably, more than a year after the attack, the alleged assailants named by Gunani remain absconding.