06 October 2025 Anticipatory Bail >> Criminal Law   |   FIR >> Criminal Law   |   Property Dispute Asbestos >> Property & Real Estate  

The case was filed from FIR No. 279/2024, registered on 10 December 2024 at Porsa, District Morena, Madhya Pradesh. The FIR implicated Santosh and his family members in assaulting the complainant during a dispute pertaining to property ownership. The charges invoked provisions under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 3(5), and 118(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va), and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

Arguments presented in court indicated that the row resulted from a family settlement in July 2023, when the petitioner's sister-in-law filed a complaint against the Superintendent of Police claiming that the complainant had refused to leave the disputed premises even after there was a settled statement on 10 December 2023 procured by the Municipal Council, Porsa. The petitioner contended that he had previously gone to the local police expecting a false case against him.

Having heard both sides, the Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria Bench noted that the case seemed to be a family feud with overlapping complaints and counter-complaints. The court explained that the contention over the statutory bar for anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act could not be held at this juncture since the fundamental grievance needed probing in the course of trial.

The special leave petition was disposed of in these terms, and pending applications were also shut.

Section 3, BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA - 2023  

Section 115, BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA - 2023  

Section 118, BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA - 2023  

Section 296, BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA - 2023  

Section 351, BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA - 2023  

BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023  

Section 18, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - 1989  

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989