Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Bhawsar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 8124
1 CRR. No. 4475 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 25th OF MARCH, 2026
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4475 of 2025
SANJAY BHAWSAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Navneet Kishore Verma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Jai Gopal Chouksey - G.A. for the respondent/State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 06.01.2026
Pronounced on : 25.03.2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
This criminal revision under Section 438 & 442 of BNSS, 2023 r/w Section 397 & 401 of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 04.08.2025 (Annexure A-1) in ST No.69/2025 by 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, whereby charges under Section 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC were framed against the revision petitioner in a case arising out of Crime No.335/2021 registered at police station Kotwali, Ujjain.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the revision petitioner was initially working in the Office of Municipal Corporation, Ujjain against the vacant post of "Tracer" as daily wages worker. He joined on 11.09.1995 and his tenure was extended periodically from time to time. Thereafter, he joined in the Office of Municipal Corporation, Ujjain as Signature Not Verified Signed by: VATAN SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 26-03-2026 10:57:57 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 8124 2 CRR. No. 4475 of 2025 "Time Keeper" a regular post on 17.08.2010 and submitted documents to secure the above post including the verified copy of Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination (10+2) 1991 conducted by Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal with Roll No.2289394.
3. Assistant Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ujjain filed a complaint dated 04.08.2021 to the In-charge police station Kotwali, Ujjain alleging that revision petitioner have got appointment to the post of Time Keeper on the basis of forged marksheet of Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination 1991. Crime No.335/2021 was registered under Section 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. After investigations, the final report was submitted and the matter was committed to the Sessions Court resulting in ST No.69/2025 and vide impugned order dated 04.08.2025, the charges as mentioned above were framed rejecting the application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 250 of BNSS, 2023 (Annexure A-2).
4. Challenging the impugned order this revision petitioner has been preferred on the ground that one Arjunsingh Chandel claiming himself as editor of the Daily News Paper the "Dainik Agnipath" have made complaint against the petitioner to the Commissioner, Ujjain (M.P.) in the year 2017 alleging the petitioner to obtained the employment in the Municipal Corporation, Ujjain, using forged mark-sheet of class 12. First departmental enquiry conducted against the revision petitioner by the Municipal Corporation, Ujjain has been found unconstitutional. Vide order dated 14.06.2019 in WP No.20101/2018 by this Court and that order is part of the final report. Again, an enquiry was conducted by the Municipal Corporation, Ujjain and after the result of this departmental enquiry, he was discharged from his job again.
5. The second discharge of service was challenged by way of W.P. No.12957/2021 before this Court. The revision petitioner was granted Signature Not Verified Signed by: VATAN SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 26-03-2026 10:57:57 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 8124 3 CRR. No. 4475 of 2025 the benefit of anticipatory bail vide order dated 30.11.2021 in MCRC No.45534/2021. The basis of the prosecution is a WhatsApp image supplied by a private person and that private person is not a victim. The pages of service book are missing, where the statement of the concerned responsible employee in charge of record of service book as well as writer of the service book not recorded and the grounds raised in application u/s 227 of the Cr.P.C. are not properly adjudicated. The relevant page of the service book supplied to the prosecution by the Employer Municipal Corporation Ujjain from their custody and control does not have page no. 3 & 4. The alleged copy of 12" mark-sheet provided in shape of WhatsApp image by Arjunsingh Chandel is not proven to be authentic and accurate so it may be deemed insufficient to establish the prosecution case. To establish the prima facie case an enquiry regarding Page No.3 and 4 of service book was initiated by the Employer but he has not been prosecuted. Annexures A-6 and A-7 are the communications by the Investigating Agency to the Employer Municipal Corporation, Ujjain itself proves that the prosecution itself was not confident by their investigation regarding the alleged offence.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the Apex Court judgment in the cases of State v L. Muniswamy reported in (1977) 2 SCC 699, S.W. Pal v State of Bihar reported in 2002 SCC (Cri) 129, Ram Naravan v CBI reported in (2003) 3 SCC 641, C.B.1. v Duncan Agro reported in (1996) 5 SCCS 91, Ayan v CBI reported in (2003) 3 SCC 641, Om Prakash Gupta v State reported in AIR 1957 SC 458; S.K. Alagh v State reported in (2008) 5 SCC 662; Common Cause v Union of India reported in 1999 SCC (Cri) 1196, Indian Bank v Satyam reported in (1996) 5 SCC 550: AIR 1996 SC 2592, Padmanava Signature Not Verified Signed by: VATAN SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 26-03-2026 10:57:57 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 8124 4 CRR. No. 4475 of 2025 Rao, in re AIR 1970 Mys 254 and State v Kailash Prasad reported in AIR 1961 Pat 451.
Heard.
7. Counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the present revision and prayed for dismissal of the same.
Perused the final report submitted under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 and the documents annexed with the final report.
8. Before dealing with the rival contentions, it is appropriate to refer to the scope of exercise of power under section 227 of the Cr.P.C or presently section 250 of the BNSS, 2023. 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 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: VATAN SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 26-03-2026 10:57:57 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 8124 5 CRR. No. 4475 of 2025 facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him."
9. 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, 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 whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal."Signature Not Verified Signed by: VATAN SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 26-03-2026 10:57:57
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 8124 6 CRR. No. 4475 of 2025
10. The position of law enunciated in the said decisions reveals that while invoking the power under section 227 of the Cr.P.C, the judge concerned has to consider only the record of the case and the document produced along with the same. If on such consideration, the Court formed an opinion that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused concerned, he shall be discharged after recording the reasons thereof. It is also evident from the precedence on the aforesaid question that while exercising the said power, the Court could sift the materials produced along with the final report only for the purpose of considering the question whether there is ground to proceed against the accused concerned.
11. The further limitation that at the stage of framing of charge or considering the discharge application, the impermissibility of mini trial as laid down in State of Rajasthan vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap - 2021 SCC OnLine SC 314 is being referred as under:
"At the stage of framing of the charge and /or considering the discharge application, the mini trial is not permissible."
12. In CBI vs. Aryan Singh -2023 SCC Online SC 379 also, the same position of law has been reiterated. The relevant paragraph from the said judgment is extracted herein below:
"Para 10 ....As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial.
At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider "whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not."
13. First this Court considers the objection that Arjunsingh Chandel is not the victim in this case. The alleged offences are cognizable and any person may intimate regarding commission of cognizable offence, Signature Not Verified Signed by: VATAN SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 26-03-2026 10:57:57 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 8124 7 CRR. No. 4475 of 2025 hence, the arguments that Arjunsingh Chandel is not the victim have no substance.
14. The allegations relate to the period when revision petitioner got selection to the post of Time Keeper in the Municipal Corporation, Ujjain. The certificate cum marksheet of Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination 10+2, 1991 purported to be issued by Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Bhopal regarding Roll No.2289394 available at serial number 113 have reported to be forged.
15. The standard of framing of charges is only prima facie case and the final report against the revision petitioner is based on the report of the Divisional Office, Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Indore communicated letter No.435/2018 dated 08.06.2018 regarding the marksheet available at Sr. No.113 with the record. All the objections are matter of defence and not to be considered at the stage of framing of charges. The difference in the marksheet made available by the revision petitioner on 14.12.2021 bearing the Roll No.2289394 is that he got compartment in higher mathematics whereas the basis of prosecution is showing him clear in higher mathematics also.
16. Considering the aforesaid and the material collected during the investigation as mentioned above certainly exhibits a criminal intent and satisfy the standard of "grave suspicion" for framing of charges as aforesaid against the revision petitioner, therefore, the trial Court has not committed any illegality in framing of charges. Hence, the present criminal revision being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.
(GAJENDRA SINGH) JUDGE Vatan Signature Not Verified Signed by: VATAN SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 26-03-2026 10:57:57