Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh And 4 Ors. vs Kadar And 8 Ors. on 22 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11060
1 CRR-86-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 86 of 2014
RAMESH AND 4 ORS. AND OTHERS
Versus
KADAR AND 8 ORS. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Padmnabh Saxena - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vijay Prabhakar Saraf, learned counsel for the respondent [R-1].
Heard On: 25.03.2026
Delivered On: 22.04.2026
ORDER
This Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 and 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 is preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 03.01.2014 passed in CRR No.66/2011 by Second ASJ, Khargone M.P. whereby modifying the order dated 09.12.2010 passed in a complaint filed by respondent, the cognizance has been ordered under Section 302 /34 read with Section 201 of IPC against the revision petitioner.
2. Facts in brief are that a complaint was preferred before the JMFC, Khargone against 13 accused persons i.e. respondent nos.2 to 10 and present revision petitioners for taking cognizance under Section 302/34 read with Section 201 and 120-B of IPC regarding the incident dated 16.05.1991 at about 08:00PM in village Gogava in which four persons belonging to Muslim community namely Ahmad Hussain, Saleem, Rafiq and Mehmood all resident of village Gogava were murdered by a mob of anti social elements. Allegations were leveled against the revision petitioner alongwith the police officials as well as the members of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 24-04-2026 11:27:19 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11060 2 CRR-86-2014 society. Respondent no.1 approached various authorities, but he was not heard and no criminal law was enforced on his complaint and his complaint was not taken into consideration. He Preferred a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) bearing WP No.1866/2007 before the High Court of MP Bench at Indore. Despite the order of this Court in the said PIL, no relief was granted to the respondent no.1. and he preferred the complaint.
3. Respondent no.1 examined himself as PW-1, Abdul Kadir S/o Abdul Rehmaan PW-2, Sultan PW-3, Hajra PW-4, Hoora Pw-5, Kallu PW-6, Bhuribai PW-7 and Jannum as PW-8 under Section 203 of Cr.P.C., 1973 and a report was also called from the SDOP, Bhikangaon, Khargone.
4. Vide order dated 09.12.2010 (A/5), the complaint was dismissed under Section 203 of Cr.P.C., 1973.
5. Challenging the order of JMFC, Khargone, a revision petition was preferred and the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone allowed the revision petition partially and ordered to take cognizance against the revision petitioner under Section 302/34 and 201 of IPC and directed to proceed further accordingly.
6. Challenging the impugned order of learned 2nd ASJ, Khargone, the present revision petition has been preferred on the ground that one another private complaint was filed by one Abdul Kadir S/o Abdul Rahmaan for the same incident against the same accused persons and allegations were also identical and that complaint was also dismissed by JMFC, Khargone vide order dated 08.02.2010 and against which, the CRR No.151/2009 by the 2nd ASJ, Khargone was also dismissed. In this case, the Additional Sessions Judge has committed grave error of law in not considering the credibility of the evidence as the witness kept silence for Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 24-04-2026 11:27:19 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11060 3 CRR-86-2014 a period of 16 long years. No explanation has been given by any of the witness that whey he did not disclose about the incident for a period of 16 years. This long delay itself shows that the evidence produced in the case is not credible at all and no finding can be based upon such incredible evidence. The learned Sessions Court has committed grave error in not believing the enquiry report filed by SDOP, Bhikangao, Khargone in which it has been clearly stated that there is no evidence against the applicants.
7. Heard.
8. Counsel for respondent no.1 has opposed the prayer.
9. Perused the record.
10. Before proceeding further, the scope of criminal revision challenging the dismissal of a complaint under Section 203 of CR.P.C., 1973 is being reproduced through section 398 of Cr.P.C, 1973 and corresponding Section 439 of BNSS, 2023;
398. Power to order inquiry.
On examining any record under Section 397 or otherwise, the High Court or the Sessions Judge may direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate by himself or by any of the Magistrates subordinate to him to make, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate may himself make or direct any subordinate Magistrate to make, further inquiry into any complaint which has been dismissed under Section 203 or sub-section (4) of Section 204, or into the case of any person accused of an offence who has been discharged :
Provided that no Court shall make any direction under Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 24-04-2026 11:27:19 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11060 4 CRR-86-2014 this Section for inquiry into the case of any person who has been discharged unless such person has had an opportunity of showing cause why such direction should not be made.
439. Power to order inquiry (BNSS) On examining any record under section 438 or otherwise, the High Court or the Sessions Judge may direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate by himself or by any of the Magistrates subordinate to him to make, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate may himself make or direct any subordinate Magistrate to make, further inquiry into any complaint which has been dismissed under section 226 or sub- section (4) of section 227, or into the case of any person accused of an offence who has been discharged:
Provided that no Court shall make any direction under this section for inquiry into the case of any person who has been discharged unless such person has had an opportunity of showing cause why such direction should not be made.
11. Accordingly, learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone was not within the jurisdiction to order to take cognizance of offence against the revision petitioners instead he was justified in conducting the further enquiry.
12. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by learned 2nd ASJ, Khargone is modified to the extent that instead of taking cognizance, the concerned Magistrate shall conduct a further enquiry considering the compliant filed by one Abdul Kadir S/o Abdul Rahmaan which was dismissed by JMFC, Khargone as well as affirmed in CRR No.151/2009 by 2nd ASJ, Khargone by calling the record of the case and ensure whether that complaint relates to the same offence or Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 24-04-2026 11:27:19 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11060 5 CRR-86-2014 the same is further challenged or not. The learned Magistrate shall pass an speaking and reasoned order as per law.
13. With the aforesaid, the revision petition stands partly allowed and disposed off.
14. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Sessions Court and JMFC, Khargone concerned for necessary information and compliance.
(GAJENDRA SINGH) JUDGE amit Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 24-04-2026 11:27:19