Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raj Yogendra Singh Jaat vs Shrikant on 5 February, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4726
1 MCRC-51535-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 5 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 51535 of 2025
RAJ YOGENDRA SINGH JAAT
Versus
SHRIKANT
Appearance:
Shri Hardayesh Kumar Shukla - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Brijesh Kumar Tyagi - GA for the State.
Shri Mayank Pathak - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking recall/modification of the order dated 07.10.2025 passed by this Court in CRR No. 2425/2021, with a further prayer to rehear the said criminal revision on merits.
2. The petitioner had filed an application under Section 145 of CrPC before the competent authority for removal of encroachment and for opening the approach road, which had been illegally closed by the respondent. During the proceedings, the learned SDM called for a report from the Tehsildar, Seondha, District Datia. The Additional Tehsildar, after inquiry, submitted a report clearly stating that the respondent had made illegal encroachment over the said land. On the basis of the said report, the learned SDM passed an order dated 25.02.2020 directing removal of the encroachment. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed Criminal Revision No. 22/2020 before the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Seondha, Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 28-02-2026 16:49:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4726 2 MCRC-51535-2025 District Datia. The learned Revisional Court allowed the said revision and set aside the order passed by the SDM. Against the said revisional order, the present petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 2425/2021 before this Court. The said revision came up for hearing on 07.10.2025. On that day, none appeared on behalf of the respondent, and the matter was argued on merits on behalf of the petitioner. During the course of hearing, no objection regarding the maintainability of the revision was raised by the respondent, nor any query was put by the Court on the said issue. However, while deciding the matter, this Court dismissed the revision on the ground that it was not maintainable being a second revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order dated 07.10.2025 suffers from an apparent error on the face of the record, as dismissal of the revision on the ground of maintainability is not in accordance with Section 397 CrPC. Section 397(3) CrPC only bars a second revision by the same person before another forum, i.e., once a person has filed a revision either before the Sessions Court or the High Court, he cannot file another revision before the other forum. In the present case, the first revision was filed by the respondent before the Sessions Court, whereas the present revision before this Court was filed by the petitioner. Therefore, the bar under Section 397(3) CrPC is not applicable in the present case, and the revision filed by the petitioner was maintainable. This Court, while passing the impugned order, has inadvertently treated the present revision as barred under Section 397(3), which amounts to a legal and apparent error. It is further submitted that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to address Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 28-02-2026 16:49:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4726 3 MCRC-51535-2025 the issue of maintainability, as no such objection was raised nor any query was put by the Court. If the Court was of the opinion that the revision was not maintainable, the proper course would have been to return the revision for presentation before the competent forum, instead of dismissing it outright. It is a settled principle of law that although there is no provision for review under criminal law, the Court has inherent power (now under Section 528 BNSS) to recall its order to prevent miscarriage of justice and to correct errors apparent on the face of record. In the present case, the impugned order has resulted in grave prejudice to the petitioner, as his case has not been considered on merits. Therefore, in order to secure the ends of justice, the impugned order be recalled and the revision be heard afresh on merits.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the present petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.
5. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Puranmal S/o Badrilal Gupta Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2007 (1) M.P.L.J. 90 , wherein it has been held that though there is no express provision of review under the criminal jurisprudence, the High Court possesses inherent power to recall its order to prevent miscarriage of justice and to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 07.10.2025 suffers from a patent legal error. The dismissal of Criminal Revision No. 2425/2021 on the ground of maintainability, without affording Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 28-02-2026 16:49:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4726 4 MCRC-51535-2025 opportunity to the petitioner and by erroneously invoking the bar under Section 397(3) CrPC, has resulted in failure of justice.
7. Accordingly, the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The order dated 07.10.2025 passed in CRR No. 2425/2021 is recalled. The said criminal revision is restored to its original number and shall be listed for hearing on merits in due course.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE (aspr) Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 28-02-2026 16:49:58