Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vipin Shrivastav vs The State Of M. P. on 5 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:109
1 CRR-5536-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5536 of 2024
VIPIN SHRIVASTAV
Versus
THE STATE OF M. P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Avinash Kumar Khare- Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rahul Solanki- GA for the State.
Shri Gouransh Vyas- Advocate for the respondent no.2.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1211 of 2025
VIPIN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rishiraj Trivedi- Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rahul Solanki- GA for the State.
Shri Gouransh Vyas- Advocate for the respondent no.2.
(Heard on : 11.12.2025)
(Delivered on: 05.01.2026)
ORDER
Both the criminal revisions arises in connection with Session Case No. 250/2003, pending before the Court of 4th Additional Session Judge Shajapur (MP), in which charges under Section 379, 403, 468 of the IPC have been framed against the revision petitioner in a case instituted on the Complaint of Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 06-01-2026 18:24:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:109 2 CRR-5536-2024 Respondent No. 2 in both the revision petitions.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that Respondent No. 2 in both the revision petitions filed a complaint before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjapur, (M.P.) against the revision petitioner for taking cognizance under Sections 379, 403, 406, 468, and 506 of the IPC-1860 with the allegations that the revision petitioner was Assistant Statistical Officer posted in Women's Child Welfare Office, Berkshire District, Shahjapur in the year 2014-15. Complainant/ Respondent No.2 was unemployed at that time. Revision Petitioner demanded Rs.1,58,000/- from the Complainant/ Respondent No.2 at the Assurance of arranging a job. Complainant/Respondent No. 2 arranged an amount of Rs.1,18,000 and deposited in the account of Revision Petitioner maintained at Branch Shahjapur of Punjab National Bank and promised to pay rest of the amount on securing the job. The Revision Petitioner asked the Complainant/ accused to provide his Passbook, cheque-book, Aadhaar Card and other documents at Bus Stand Shahjapur on 17-08-2015. Complainant/Respondent No.2 reached at the Bus Stand Shahjapur with the documents on 17-08-2015. Revision Petitioner/ accused asked about the documents. He replied that documents are in the bag with motorcycle. Revision Petitioner/ accused told Respondent No.2 to bring the documents through driver of his car. Respondent No.2/ complainant rushed to bring the documents. Respondent No.2/ complainant moved to follow the instructions of revision petitioner/ accused. When he returned then his documents were not found in motorcycle. He inquired about the document from the revision petitioner/ accused and he denied. He Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 06-01-2026 18:24:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:109 3 CRR-5536-2024 filed a complaint in the police station at Kotwali, Shajapur on 18.08.2015. Thereafter he received a notice from a counsel on 01.08.2019 in which factum of dishonored of cheque of Rs.5 lacs was mentioned and the details of the cheque were the same that were stolen on 18.08.2015. He replied the notice and filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shajapur on 16.12.2019. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shajapur took cognizance and committed the case to Sessions Court and session court took cognizance and framed recharge and proceeded to record the evidence.
3. Challenging the framing of charges, Criminal Revision No.5536/2024 has been preferred on the ground that in the complaint to police (A/1) on 18.08.2015 the number of cheques stated to be stolen is not mentioned. It is not mentioned that cheques were blank or bear signature of complainant/respondent no.2. In the complaint dated 18.08.2015 presented before the Bank of India for closing the account (Article-A/2) also the number of cheques is not mentioned. The complaint is a counter blast of filing case under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed due to dishonour of cheque of Rs.5 lacs amount. The sole testimony of complainant is not sufficient for framing of charges. Only xerox copy of the document have been marked and xerox copy is not admissible in evidence. Trial court have not taken into consideration the factum mentioned in complaint that earlier Rs.2 lacs were borrowed that amount was returned but thereafter, complainant/ respondent no.2 turned eyes and denied to repay the amount of Rs. 5 lacs and the impugned order is not speaking and prayed for discharge from charges framed under sections 379, 403, 468 of the IPC, Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 06-01-2026 18:24:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:109 4 CRR-5536-2024 1860 vide impugned order dated 15.10.2025.
4. CRR No.1211/2025 is preferred being aggrieved by order dated 5.3.2025 in ST No.250/2023 where by the application under the proviso of section 202 (2) of the Cr.P.C. 1973 (Annexure-A/5) for not permitting the witness other than examined before the CJM Shajapur have been rejected.
5. Before complainant to be examined in support of the complaint. List includes five witness namely i.e. complainant himself, Manager, Bank of India, Shajapur, Incharge Police station - Kotwali Shajapur Shri BP Singal, Oath Commissioner Shahjapur, Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Shajapur and further it was mentioned that other witnesses will be examined as per the requirement.
6. Before the JMFC, Shajapur, complaint/ respondent no.2 Rameshwar was examined under section 200 of Cr.P.C. 1973 on 27.09.2021 and denied to examine any other witness. Thereafter, JMFC Shahjapur called the report from the same police station vide order dated 09.02.2022. The enquiry report was received by the JMFC on 27.7.2022 and complainant/ respondent no.2 intimated that no further witness has to be examined. Arguments were heard on 30.07.2022 and vide order dated 18.8.2022 cognizance was taken under section 379, 403 and 468 of the IPC and the revision petitioner was ordered to be summoned and the case was committed. After framing of charges Additional Public Prosecutor Shajapur submitted the list of witnesses i.e. complainant/ Rameshwar, Manager Bank of India, Branch Manager Punjab National Bank, Shajapur proposed to be examined on first day and P.C Singal/ Notary and Police Inspector, Police Station- Kotwali Shajapur was Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 06-01-2026 18:24:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:109 5 CRR-5536-2024 proposed to be examined on the second day.
7. Objecting the proposed list of witnesses except complaint/ respondent no.2 application (Annexure A/5) was preferred. The application was replied by Annexure A/6 on the ground that the proposed witnesses were included in the list of witnesses filed along with the complaint before the JMFC Shajapur and those witnesses are necessary to be examined. The application has been filed only to prolong the progress of the case. Trial court rejected the application and this revision petition has been preferred challenging the legality of the order relying on Dr. Waseem Siddiqui Vs. State of M.P. 2006 (2) MPLJ 24 and Sonal. K. Amin Vs. Dr. Neena. V. Patel and Another ILR 2012 MP 1743 and Bhajji Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1981 Criminal Law Journal 1958.
8. Heard.
9. Counsel for the State opposes the revision petitions.
10. Counsel for the respondent also opposes the revision petitions.
11. For adjudicating both the revision petitions following questions need to be answered:-
(i) Whether the allegation in the complaint and statement of the complainant examined on 27.9.2021 under section 200 of Cr.P.C.
1973 and Article-A/1 to A/8 satisfy the standard of "grave suspicion" for framing of charges under sections 379, 403 and 468 of the IPC?
(ii) Weather in session trial case instituted on complaint, prosecution is deprived of examining the witness that were not Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 06-01-2026 18:24:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:109 6 CRR-5536-2024 examined under section 200 or 202 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 before the trial court?
12. Question no.1:- The Apex Court in P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala and another - (2010) 2 SCC 398, made an in-depth consideration regarding the scope of power under section 227 Cr.P.C and held thus:
"10. Before considering the merits of the claim of both the parties, it is useful to refer to Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which reads as under:
"227. Discharge. -- If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing."
If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. Further, the words "not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused" clearly show that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the court, after the trial starts.
11. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In other Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 06-01-2026 18:24:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:109 7 CRR-5536-2024 words, the sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him."
13. In Sajjan Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation -(2010) 9 SCC 368,(2010) 9 SCC 368, the Apex Court has laid down certain guiding principles for discharge as under:
"21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge:
(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case.
(ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 06-01-2026 18:24:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:109 8 CRR-5536-2024 there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.
(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 06-01-2026 18:24:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:109 9 CRR-5536-2024 whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal."
14. Testing on the above strength of the principles, contents of the complaint, the statement of complaint/ respondent no.2 recorded under section 200 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 and Annexure-A/2 along with article A/1 to A/8 taken at its face value are sufficient to raise the "grave suspicion" for framing of charges under section 379, 403 and 468 of the IPC. The contention raised by the revision petitioner/ accused are matter of defence to be considered at appropriate stage. Question number one is answered against revision petitioner and in favour of respondent number 2.
15. Question No.2:- The Apex Court in the case of Shivjee Singh Vs. Nagendra Tiwari and Others AIR 2010 SC 2261 have considered the question whether examination of all witnesses cited in the complaint is sine qua non for cognizance by a Magistrate in a case exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and answered the questions in para-17 that examination of all the witnesses cited in the application or whose names are disclosed by the complainant in furtherance of the directions given by magistrate in terms of proviso to section 202 (2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 is not condition precedent for taking cognizance or issue process against the persons whose names are in the complaint. In Kuman Vs. State of M.P. MCRC No.14124/2016 Order dated 27.09.2023 Jabalpur Bench of High Court discussed the issue at length and held in para-9 to para-11, 15 & 21 which is being reproduced as below:-
"9. Chapter 18, Section 225 to 237 of Cr.P.C prescribes procedure of trial before the court of Sessions. Section 230 of Cr.P.C makes it clear that if an accused refuses to plead or Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 06-01-2026 18:24:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:109 10 CRR-5536-2024 does not plead, or claims to be tried or is not convicted under section 229, the Judge shall fix a date for the examination of witnesses, and may, on the application of the prosecution, issue any process for compelling the attendance of any witness or the production of any document or other thing. Section 231 of Cr.P.C. prescribes Evidence for prosecution. Section 231(1) provides that on the date so fixed, the Judge shall proceed to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution.
10. A bare reading of aforesaid provision under Section 231 of Cr.P.C. makes it clear that this section in no way restricts the prosecution with regard to the witnesses to be called. Even if a witness was not named by the prosecution in the opening address. if the fact disclosed in the evidence or the question put in the cross examination necessitate bringing on record the evidence of a witness, the court should not hesitate in summoning him as a prosecution witness or even as court witness because as per mandate of section 231 of Cr.P.C all witnesses are examined at the trial. It is not correct to say that under section 231 of Cr.P.C. only those witnesses can be examined in a trial " in a complaint cases exclusively triable by the court of sessions who have been produced in the inquiry under section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C". The trial court has to examine all the witnesses mentioned in the list given under Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 06-01-2026 18:24:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:109 11 CRR-5536-2024 section 204 of Cr.P.C, subject to the condition that the evidence of the witnesses should be relevant to the facts of the case.
11. In the case of Rama Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar-(2009) 6 SCC 346, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "It is also clear from Section 231 of the Cr.P.C. that the prosecution is entitled to produce any person as witness even though such person is not named in the earlier charge- sheet."
15. Under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C statement of any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case is required to be recorded in writing but under section 231 of Cr.P.C, the court in the course of trial of the Sessions case is "to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution case". These words of section 231 of Cr.P.C do not confine production of witnesses by the prosecution side only upto those persons whose statements have been recorded under section 200 or 202 of Cr.P.C. On the other hand, the words "all such evidence" clearly signifies that the right of the prosecution extends to production of such persons as its witnesses during the course of the trial which have not been named in the complaint/ charge sheet or whose statements have not been recorded under section 200 or 202 of Cr.P.C.
21. Therefore, for the reasons stated hereinabove an foregoing discussion, it is not Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 06-01-2026 18:24:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:109 12 CRR-5536-2024 correct to say that under section 231 of Cr.P.C only those witnesses can be examined at the trial (in a complaint case) exclusively triable by the court of Sessions who had been produced in an inquiry under section 202 of Cr.P.C. The Session court has to examine all the witnesses mentioned in the list given by the prosecution subject to the condition that evidence of the witnesses is relevant with the facts of the case."
16. In this case the statement recorded under section 200 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 of the complainant/respondent no.2 reveals that all the documents in the form of Article-A/1 to Article-A/8 were relied by the complainant in para-33 of his statement and list of witnesses furnished under section 204 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 mention the name of witnesses to prove those documents.
17. As far as the facts of the Waseem (Supra), Sonal. K. Amin (supra) and Bhajji (Supra) are concerned the same have no application in the facts of the present case. In Waseem (Supra) the revision petition was filed against order dated 29.07.2024 challenging the order of framing of charges, and on considering the issue whether Committal Court has wrongly committed the case without recording the statements of all the witnesses as provided under the proviso of Sub-section (2) of Section 202 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, made the referred observation.
18. But in the case on hand the facts are different. In this case all the documents were in the form of A/1 to A/7 relied on by the complainant in statement recorded under section 200 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 and the witness Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 06-01-2026 18:24:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:109 13 CRR-5536-2024 list no.2, 3, 4 and 5 mentioned in the trial program dated 21.10.2024 are in reference to those documents only. In the cases cited by revision petitioner provisions of section 231 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 were not taken into consideration. Sonal. K. Amin (supra) and Bhajji (Supra) are also altogether different and have no application to the controversy involved in this case. Therefore, learned trial court committed no illegality in rejecting the objections of the revision petitioner and summoning the witness as per the trial program. Accordingly, question no.2 is answered against revision petitioner & in favour of respondent no.2.
19. In the light of the conclusions recorded in para-14 and para-18 above, both these criminal revisions have no substance and are hereby dismissed.
(GAJENDRA SINGH) JUDGE ajit Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 06-01-2026 18:24:43