Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Urmila Sondhiya vs Manoj Kumar on 6 April, 2026
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26413
1 CRR-2595-2016 & MCRC-21659-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 2595 OF 2016
SMT. URMILA SONDHIYA
Versus
MANOJ KUMAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Satyam Agrawal, Advocate for petitioner/complainant.
Shri Satya Prakash Mishra, Advocate for respondents 1 &2/accused.
Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, Advocate for respondent 3/accused.
...........................................................................................................................
MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE NO. 21659 OF 2016
MANOJ KUMAR AND ANOTHER
Versus
SMT. URMILA SONDHIYA AND ANOTHER
Appearance:
Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, Advocate for petitioners/accused.
Shri Satyam Agrawal, Advocate for respondent 1/complainant.
Shri Pramod Choubey, Govt. Advocate for respondent 2/State.
...........................................................................................................................
Reserved on :: 02.04.2026
Delivered on :: 06.04.2026
...........................................................................................................................
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 06-04-2026
21:00:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26413
2 CRR-2595-2016 & MCRC-21659-2016
ORDER
Instant criminal revision and miscellaneous criminal case both, have arisen out of impugned order dtd.27.08.2016 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mauganj, District Rewa (in short 'the ASJ') in Sessions Case No. 342/2014 whereby the ASJ has found that no case under Section 467, 468, 471 & 120B of IPC is made out against the accused (Manoj Kumar and Chitrasen Patel), however, found that the case under Section 167 & 465 of IPC against the accused-Chitrasen and under Section 465/120B IPC against the accused-Manoj Kumar is made out prima facie and the same being triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class (in short 'the JMFC'), matter was remitted to the JMFC for trial in accordance with the law.
2. In the Criminal Revision No.2595/2016 filed by the complainant- Smt. Urmila Sondhiya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is bhoomiswami of land survey no. 68/11/ka/3 and 68/12/ka/3 and without there being any order passed by any competent revenue court/authority, the accused-Manoj Kumar with the help of accused- Chitrasen Patel (computer operator) got the land of petitioner, recorded in his name whereas the accused-Manoj Kumar is bhoomiswami of land survey no. 18/1/cha. He submits that the same was got done by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI SINHA Signing time: 06-04-2026 21:00:14 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26413 3 CRR-2595-2016 & MCRC-21659-2016 accused-Manoj Kumar for getting Kisan Credit Card. Even though, he did/could not succeed in getting the loan/KCC but since he has committed forgery with a view to get the benefit, therefore, the accused are liable to be prosecuted for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC also. As such, he submits that the order of remittance is not sustainable. With these submissions, he prays for allowing the criminal revision and for dismissal of misc. criminal case.
3. In Misc. Criminal Case No.21659/2016, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused submits that although there is no illegality in the impugned order in respect of the finding to the effect that no case is made out against the accused under Sections 467, 468, 471 & 120B of IPC, but they submit that on the basis of material available on record, even prima facie no case for the offence under Section 167 & 465 of IPC against the accused-Chitrasen and under Section 465/120B of IPC against the accused-Manoj Kumar, is made out, therefore, the impugned order of remittance passed by the ASJ to the JMFC, is not sustainable. In support of their case, they placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parminder Kaur vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Signature Not Verified Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI SINHA Signing time: 06-04-2026 21:00:14 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26413 4 CRR-2595-2016 & MCRC-21659-2016 another, (2010) 1 SCC 322 and pray for allowing the miscellaneous criminal case and dismissal of criminal revision.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. In the present case there is dispute only in respect of the fact, as to whether the accused-Manoj Kumar with the help of the accused- Chitrasen Patel (computer operator), had got the land of the ownership of complainant-Smt. Urmila Devi Sondhiya, recorded in his name or not, however, there is no dispute that the alleged entry of the name of Manoj Kumar Mishra over the land survey No. 68/11/ka/3 and 68/12/ka/3 remained in the revenue khasra for a period of about 15 days and even in presence of the said entry, the accused did/could not get any benefit. Even otherwise, an entry made in khasra neither confers title nor extinguishes title of true owner. As such, in my considered opinion, the order passed by the ASJ, which is under challenge in Criminal Revision No.2595/2016, is not liable to be interfered with within the limited scope of criminal revision. Resultantly, the Criminal Revision is liable to be dismissed.
6. So far as the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners/accused in M.Cr.C. No. 21659/2016, are concerned, by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI SINHA Signing time: 06-04-2026 21:00:14 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26413 5 CRR-2595-2016 & MCRC-21659-2016 impugned order dtd.27.08.2016, the ASJ has come to conclusion that on the basis of available evidence prima facie case is made out against the accused-Chitrasen Patel for the offences under Section 167 & 465 IPC and against the accused-Manoj Kumar for the offences under Section 465/120B of IPC and remitted the matter to the JMFC.
7. Apparently, the impugned order dtd.27.08.2016 was passed by the ASJ at the time of framing of charge and on the basis of material available on record, did not find prima facie case against the accused for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 & 120B of IPC, but finding the prima facie case for the offences under Sections 167 & 465 IPC against the accused-Chitrasen Patel and Sections 465/120B against the accused- Manoj Kumar, remitted the matter to the JMFC, since these offences are triable by the JMFC.
8. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that since by the impugned order, the ASJ has simpliciter remitted the matter to the JMFC, therefore, at the present stage no interference is warranted in the order of remittance.
9. Perusal of the impugned order shows that although by the impugned order, the ASJ has remitted the matter to the JMFC for trial for Signature Not Verified Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI SINHA Signing time: 06-04-2026 21:00:14 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26413 6 CRR-2595-2016 & MCRC-21659-2016 the offences under Sections 167 & 465 of IPC against accused-Chitrasen Patel and under Sections 465/120B of IPC against the accused-Manoj Kumar but in view of the findings recorded by the ASJ in the order of remittance, the JMFC will have to proceed against the accused and now the JMFC will not have any jurisdiction to give its opinion as to whether any case for trial under Section 167, 465 and 120-B of IPC is made out or not. So, this court is required to examine the correctness of the findings recorded by the ASJ in the impugned order of remittance.
10. Upon perusal of the documents/record available before this Court, especially the disputed khasra entry, it does not transpire that the accused- Manoj Kumar with the help of accused-Chitrasen got his name recorded over the land survey no. 68/11/ka/3 and 68/12/ka/3 in place of the complainant-Urmila Sondhiya. More so, the khasra available on record shows that the entry of the name of Urmila Sondhiya was never struck out and it remained there in the disputed khasra panchsala of the year 2009-2014 along with Manoj Kumar, however, the entry of the name of Manoj Kumar, admittedly disappeared within 15 days.
11. Further, from perusal of the document submitted to the State Bank of India by the accused Manoj Kumar for getting Kisan Credit Card, it is Signature Not Verified Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI SINHA Signing time: 06-04-2026 21:00:14 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26413 7 CRR-2595-2016 & MCRC-21659-2016 clear that the accused-Manoj Kumar has shown/declared only the land of his ownership bearing survey no.18/1/cha and not the land of complainant. So, there does not appear any malafide intention of the accused in getting such entry done in the khasra. Although there appears some mistake on the part of the accused, but in the present factual scenario, this is not a fit case to go for trial.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, Criminal Revision No. 2595/2016 stands dismissed and by setting aside the impugned order dtd.27.08.2016 to the impugned extent i.e. in respect of direction of trial against the accused for the offences under Sections 167 and 465/120B of IPC, the Misc. Criminal Case stands allowed.
13. Resultantly, the original criminal case pending before the JMFC, shall stand disposed of/closed.
14. Pending application(s), if any, also shall stand disposed of.
15. Copy of this order be sent to the concerning court/JMFC for information and taking necessary action.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE KPS Signature Not Verified Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI SINHA Signing time: 06-04-2026 21:00:14 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26413 8 CRR-2595-2016 & MCRC-21659-2016 Signature Not Verified Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI SINHA Signing time: 06-04-2026 21:00:14