Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mona Gaur vs Govind Rai on 17 April, 2026
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29902
1 CRR-1372-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 17 th OF APRIL, 2026
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1372 of 2026
MONA GAUR
Versus
GOVIND RAI
Appearance:
Ms. Indu Pande - Advocate for the petitioners.
ORDER
This criminal revision under Section 438 and 442 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short 'BNSS') has been preferred by the petitioners/accused challenging the order dated 28.02.2026 passed by 22nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, District Bhopal in S.T. No.438/2025, whereby charges under Sections 379, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w section 34 and 120-B of IPC have been framed against the petitioners.
2. As per prosecution case, the petitioners are alleged to have misused and altered the cheques issued by complainant.
3. Taking this Court to the charges framed by the Court below as well as to the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in fact, no offence under the aforesaid sections has been committed by the petitioners and they have been falsely implicated in the case. She further submits that without taking into consideration the entire material available on record and even in absence of any material against the petitioners, the Court below has committed an illegality in framing the charges against the petitioners under the aforesaid offence. She also submits that in the impugned order also, nothing has been mentioned as Signature Not Verified Signed by: SWETA SAHU Signing time: 18-04-2026 12:35:28 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29902 2 CRR-1372-2026 to what material is available against the petitioners for framing the charge under the aforesaid Sections. On inter alia submissions, she prays for setting aside the impugned order and for discharge of the petitioners.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
5. Case diary is not available. Further, no other document is available on record of this Court for recording prima facie satisfaction against the petitioners/accused regarding commission of the alleged offences.
6. However, as to on what basis the Court has found availability of sufficient material against the petitioners, has not been mentioned in the impugned order, which is creating doubt about the veracity of charges framed by the Court under Sections 379, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w section 34 and 120-B of IPC against the petitioners, which can be removed by the Court below itself by passing the speaking order.
7. With a view to see the method and manner, in which the Court below has exercised its jurisdiction, complete extract of the impugned order dtd.28.02.2026, is quoted as under :
"रा य क ओर से सु ी मीरा चरार अपर लोक अिभ० अिभयु गण अनुप थत ारा ी अंशु धाकड अिध०उप थत अिभयु गण मोना गौर एवं मनीष गौर का हा जर माफ का आवेदन प पेश कया गया जो क दिशत कारण पर आज दनांक के िलये वीकार कया गया।
करण आरोप पर अिभयोजन प के तक सुने जाने के िलये िनयत है ।
अिभयोजन प के तक सुने गये।
अिभयु प ारा पूव म ह मौ खक एवं िल खत तक तुत कये
जा चुके है ।
करण म तुत प रवाद प सह अ य द तावेज के अवलोकन से
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SWETA SAHU
Signing time: 18-04-2026
12:35:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29902
3 CRR-1372-2026
अिभयु गण के व भारतीय दं ड सं हता, 1860 क धारा 379 सहप ठत
धारा 34, धारा 420 सहप ठत धारा 34, धारा 467 सहप ठत धारा 34, धारा 468 सहप ठत धारा 34, धारा 471 सहप ठत धारा 34, धारा 120-बी के तहत आरोप वरिचत कये जाने के थम या पया आधार होना पाये जाते है ।
जहां तक अिभयु प ारा आरोप के संबंध म कये गये िल खत तक एवं मौ खक तक म िलये आ ेप का संबंध है , तो उ लेखनीय है क, आरोप के म पर सा य का व तृत पर ण कया जाना विधतः अपे त नह ं है । ब क, इस म पर यायालय को मा यह पर ण करना होता है क, अिभलेख पर उपल ध साम ी पर अिभयु प के व थम या पया आधार ह या नह ं और इस कम पर सा य का व तृत पर ण अपे त नह ं है । इसिलए, अिभयु गण ारा िलये गये उ आ ेप का िनराकरण उभय प क सा य उपरांत गुण-दोष पर ह संभव है , न क इस कम पर। फलतः अिभयु प ारा तक म िलये गये उ आ ेप इस कम पर अिभयु प को कोई लाभ दान नह ं करते है ।
फलतः अिभयु गण के व उपरो व णत अनुसार आरोप प
वरिचत कये गये।
करण म अिभयु गण के व उपरो ानुसार आरोप प तैयार
कर अिभयु गण को पढ़कर सुनाये व समझाये जाने तर अनुप थत उ अिभयु गण क ओर से उनके अिधव ा ारा अपराध अ वीकार कया और वचारण चाहा। उ ानुसार अिभयु प अिभवाक रकाड कया गया।
भा०ना०सु०सं० 2023 क धारा 330 के तहत कायवाह कये जाने पर अिभयु गण ने अिभयोजन ारा तुत सम त द तावेज को अ वीकार कया।
अिभयोजन क ओर से अपर लोक अिभयोजक ने ायल ो ाम पेश करने हे तु समय चाहा, जो इस िनदश के साथ दया गया क आगामी दनांक को आव यक प से पेश करे ।
करण ायल ो ाम पेश करने हे तु दनांक 10.3.26 ।"
*****
8. This Court has in the case of Sanjay Jatav v. State of Madhya Pradesh Signature Not Verified Signed by: SWETA SAHU Signing time: 18-04-2026 12:35:28 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29902 4 CRR-1372-2026 through the Police Station Berasiya and another, in Criminal Revision No. 1130 of 2026 dtd.06.04.2026 (at Jabalpur), placing reliance on the decisions in the case of Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra, (1972) 3 SCC 28 2; Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135 ; Ghulam Hassan Beigh vs. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey and others, (2022) 12 SCC 657 ; Rajneesh Kumar Soni vs. State of M.P., 2019 CrLJ 3515; Vinod Bohare vs. State of M.P., (2015) 2 MPLJ (Cri) 358 ; Kamla Shankar Nagda vs. State Of Rajasthan,Through Pp, 2026 Supreme (Raj) 159 ; Pawan Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan, 2025 Supreme (Online) (RAJ) 1907 ; Ashok Bhadauria vs. State, 2016 Supreme (Del) 4389 ; Smt. Mewati Devi And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine All 1050 , and Param Pal Singh Gandhi vs. The State of Bihar, 2016 SCC OnLine Pat 10209 , held as under :
"23. However, from the aforesaid discussion/settled legal position it is evident that at the stage of framing of charge, the trial court is not required to pass a detailed or elaborate order as is expected at the stage of final adjudication. At the same time, the order cannot be passed in a mechanical manner. The court is required to apply its judicial mind to the material placed on record, including the charge-sheet and the documents produced by the prosecution, and to sift the same to a limited extent for the purpose of ascertaining whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused. The trial court is not obliged to assign detailed reasons while framing charges; however, the order must reflect that the court has formed its opinion on the basis of the material available on record. Such material, forming the basis of the satisfaction of the court, ought to be indicated in the order itself so Signature Not Verified Signed by: SWETA SAHU Signing time: 18-04-2026 12:35:28 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29902
5 CRR-1372-2026 as to demonstrate that the court has duly considered the record and has arrived at the conclusion that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused and make him stand trial.
24. It is also apt to mention here that in revisional jurisdiction, the Court is empowered to call for and examine the records of any proceeding for the limited purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, and the regularity of the proceedings of the subordinate court. However, in my considered opinion this exercise of jurisdiction necessarily implies the existence of findings recorded by the court below. Where the subordinate court has failed to record necessary findings or has omitted to apply its judicial mind upon material issues, the revisional court cannot undertake an independent appreciation of evidence or substitute its own conclusions in the absence of such findings. In such circumstances, the proper course for the revisional court is to remand the matter back to the trial court for recording findings, as in the absence of such findings the revisional court cannot effectively exercise its jurisdiction. This is because the revisional jurisdiction is supervisory in nature and is not intended to convert itself into a court of first instance.
25. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position about framing of charge and in absence of any finding indicating recording of satisfaction/application of mind while framing the charge, this court has no option but to set aside the impugned Signature Not Verified Signed by: SWETA SAHU Signing time: 18-04-2026 12:35:28 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29902 6 CRR-1372-2026 order framing the charge and to remand the same to the court below for fresh consideration in the light of aforesaid settled legal position."
9. Apparently, aforesaid binding and settled legal position, has not been followed by the Court below while passing the impugned order in the instant case also.
10. Resultantly, the criminal revision succeeds and is hereby allowed and by setting aside the impugned order, matter is remanded to the Court below for passing order afresh in the light of aforesaid settled legal position, without being influenced by this order.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE ss Signature Not Verified Signed by: SWETA SAHU Signing time: 18-04-2026 12:35:28