Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rizwan Suleman vs Shri Shishir Gupta on 26 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16962
1 MCC-1967-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
ON THE 26th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 1967 of 2025
RIZWAN SULEMAN
Versus
SHRI SHISHIR GUPTA
Appearance:
Shri Naveen Vaswani - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Ved Prakash Tiwari - Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
The present application has been filed under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging disobedience against the respondents of the order dated 26.08.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Special judge Electricity Act), Bhopal in Case No.SC ELE No.40/2017.
2. It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that a case under Section 135(1) of the Electricity Act was filed against the applicant for causing damage to the respondent/company to the tune of Rs.14,23,626/- . On demand by the non-applicants, the applicant deposited Rs.3,48,500/- through draft on 24.11.2015 with the respondent/company. The applicant was tried and the case was disposed of with direction to adjust the amount deposited by the applicant by way of challan in the subsequent Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA SEN Signing time: 18-03-2026 10:41:04 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16962 2 MCC-1967-2025 electricity bills. The said order was communicated by the applicant to the respondent/company vide representation dated 18.12.2023. It is submitted that even thereafter, the respondents are continuously charging electricity bill and surcharge over the said consumption. Being aggrieved, the applicant filed an application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court's Act before the Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge Electricity Act), Bhopal, however, the same was dismissed on the ground that an appeal by the respondents is pending before the High Court. It is submitted that the respondents/authorities are deliberate in not complying with the order dated 26.08.2022. Hence, prayed for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents.
3. Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides for :
"When an inquiry or trial in any Criminal Court is concluded, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal, by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof or otherwise, of any property or document produced before it or in its custody, or regarding which any offence appears to have been committed, or which has been used for the commission of any offence.
An order may be made under Sub-Section (1) for the delivery of any property to any person claiming to be entitled to the possession thereof, without any condition or on condition that he executes a bond with or without sureties, to the satisfaction of the Court, engaging to restore such property to the Court if the order made under Sub-Section (1) is modified or set aside on appeal or revision.
A Court of Session may, instead of itself making an order under Sub-Section (1), direct the property to be delivered to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who shall thereupon deal with it in the manner provided in sections 457, 458 and 459.Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA SEN Signing time: 18-03-2026 10:41:04
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16962 3 MCC-1967-2025 Except where the properly is livestock or is subject to speedy and natural decay, or where a bond has been executed in pursuance of Sub-Section (2), an order made under Sub-Section (1) shall not be carried out for two months, or when an appeal is presented, until such appeal has been disposed of.
In this section, the term "property" includes, in the case of properly regarding which an offence appears to have been committed, not only such property as has been originally in the possession or under the control of any party, but also any property into or for which the same may have been converted or exchanged, and anything acquired by such conversion or exchange, whether immediately or otherwise."
4. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N.Madhavan vs. State of Kerala (1979) 4 SCC 1, has held :
8. The material part of Section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 [which has been re-enacted as Section 452(1) in the Code of 1973], reads as follows:
"When an inquiry or trial in any criminal court is concluded, the court may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal, by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof or otherwise, of any property or document produced before it or in its custody, or regarding which any offence appears to have been committed, or which has been used for the commission of any offence."
An analysis of this provision would show that it refers to property or document (a) which is produced before the court, or (b) which is in the custody of the court, or (c) regarding which any offence appears to have been committed, or (d) which has been used for the commission of any offence. Then, at the conclusion of the enquiry or trial, the disposal of any class of the property listed above, may be made by (i) destruction, (ii) confiscation, or (iii) delivery to any person entitled to the possession thereof.
9. In the case before us, the gun in question does not fall either under Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA SEN Signing time: 18-03-2026 10:41:04 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16962 4 MCC-1967-2025 class (c) or class (d) because it is neither "property" regarding which any offence appears to have been committed, "nor" "which has been used for the commission of any offence". The acquittal of the accused on the ground that this gun was used in causing the fatal injury to the deceased, only in self-defence, necessarily involved a finding that the gun was not used in the commission of any offence for which the accused was tried. The gun was obviously property falling under class (b).
10. The words "may make such order as it thinks fit" in the section, vest the court with a discretion to dispose of the property in any of the three modes specified in the section. But the exercise of such discretion is inherently a judicial function. The choice of the mode or manner of disposal is not to be made arbitrarily, but judicially in accordance with sound principles founded on reason and justice, keeping in view the class and nature of the property and the material before it. One of such well-recognised principles is that when after an inquiry or trial the accused is discharged or acquitted, the court should normally restore the property of class (a) or (b) to the person from whose custody it was taken. Departure from this salutary rule of practice is not to be lightly made, when there is no dispute or doubt
-- as in the instant case -- that the property in question was seized from the custody of such accused and belonged to him."
5. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Suryanarayanan (2020) 12 SCC 637, has held :
"16. The above observations indicate that the authority which is entrusted to the Court under Section 452 of the CrPC (equivalent to Section 517 of the Code of 1898) is judicial in nature. As a judicial power, it has to be exercised for valid reasons keeping in view the class and nature of the property and the material before the Court.Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA SEN Signing time: 18-03-2026 10:41:04
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16962 5 MCC-1967-2025 Normally the Court would, following the discharge or acquittal of the accused, restore the property to the person from whose custody it was taken. A departure from this rule of practice is not lightly made when there is no dispute or doubt that the property which was seized from the custody of the accused belongs to him. These observations in the decision of this Court in Madhavan (supra) clearly indicate that ordinarily the person from whom the property was seized would be entitled to an order under Section 452, when there is no dispute or doubt that the property belongs to him. It is only when the property belongs to the person from whom it was seized that such an order can be passed.
17. Where a claim is made before the court that the property does not belong to the person from whom it was seized, Section 452 does not mandate that its custody should be handed over to the person from whose possession it was seized, overriding the claim of genuine title which is asserted on behalf of a third party. It must be noted that in Madhavan case (supra), there was no dispute that the weapon of offence belonged to the accused from whom it had been seized.
18. The decision in Pushkar Singh (supra) involved prosecution for offences under Sections 449 and 372 of the Gwalior Penal Code. The Magistrate held that no case was established against the accused and the money which was recovered from his house belonged to him. There was a specific finding that the money did not belong to the complainant. The Sessions Judge dismissed the revision by the complainant. The High Court was moved for the return of the amount to the complainant and not to the accused, which application was allowed. This Court held that in view of the clear finding of fact by the Magistrate to the effect that no offence was committed in respect of the sum of money and that it did not belong to the complainant, followed by the acquittal of the accused, the amount recovered had to be delivered to the accused. Hence, the view of this Court was that following the acquittal of the accused and since there was a specific Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA SEN Signing time: 18-03-2026 10:41:04 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16962
6 MCC-1967-2025 finding that the money belonged to him, an order for return of the money to the complainant could not be countenanced."
6. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and considering the facts of the present case, the application is disposed of with a direction to the applicant to file an application before the court below for the compliance of direction of adjustment of amount. The court below had already directed in the judgment of acquittal that the amount deposited by the applicant be adjusted in future bills. From the perusal of the record of MCC, it is found that an application was filed for compliance of the order before the same Court which was dismissed on 09.04.2025 in MCrC No.1921/2024 holding that the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is pending before the High Court and therefore, contempt cannot be initiated. If there is no stay of operation of the impugned judgment by the High Court, then the application filed by the applicant for non-compliance of the direction in the impugned judgment can be entertained. Therefore, it is for the Court below to see that if there is no stay of the direction passed in the impugned judgment, the order is to be complied with by the respondent. Therefore, no case for contempt is made out.
7. With the aforesaid, the MCC is disposed of.
(DEEPAK KHOT) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA SEN Signing time: 18-03-2026 10:41:04 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16962 7 MCC-1967-2025 anand Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA SEN Signing time: 18-03-2026 10:41:04