Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gopal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 August, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
1 CRR-1653-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 5 th OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1519 of 2025
RAJEEV AGRAWAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Raj Kumar Shrivastava with Shri G. S. Sharma, Advocates for the
petitioner.
Shri Pooran Kulshreshtra, Public Prosecutor for State.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1273 of 2025
RAJKUMAR BHATIA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Soumya Pawaiya, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Pooran Kulshreshtra, Public Prosecutor for State.
Shri G. S. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4.
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1653 of 2025
GOPAL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri G. S. Sharma, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Pooran Kulshreshtra, Public Prosecutor for State.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA
Signing time: 8/7/2025
10:50:50 AM
2 CRR-1653-2025
ORDER
1. This order shall govern disposal of CRR No.1519/2025, CRR No.1273/2025 and CRR No.1653/2025 as all these criminal revisions arise out of the common order of framing of charges dated 24.2.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Vijaypur, District Sheopur, M.P. in Sessions Trial No.44/2024.
2. Petitioner Rajeev Agrawal (in CRR No.1519/2025) and petitioner Gopal and Others (in CRR No.1653 of 2025) preferred both these criminal revisions against impugned order dated 24.2.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Vijaypur, District Sheopur in Sessions Trial No.44/2024, whereby charges under Section 420, 420/34, 468, 468/34, 469, 469/34, 471, 471/34, 473, 473/34 and 201 of IPC and Section 102(2)(B)/103(a), 104 of Trade Mark Act and Section 63 of Copyright Act have been framed upon the aforesaid petitioners.
3. Petitioner Rajkumar Bhatia/complainant filed CRR No.1273/2025 being aggrieved by the same order, whereby charges under Section 272, 273 and 467 of IPC has been dropped and prayed for issuing direction to the trial Court to frame additional charges under Section 272, 273 and 467 of IPC against the accused persons.
4. Brief facts of the case of prosecution are that complainant Rajkumar Bhatia(Petitioner in CRR No.1273/2025) submitted a written complaint before SHO, Veerpur by stating that Gopal Soni is misusing his brand, trademark and copyrights and is selling fake "Bhatia Masale" and is misleading the general public, which is causing harm to the image and Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA Signing time: 8/7/2025 10:50:50 AM 3 CRR-1653-2025 goodwill of complainant. During the investigation on the basis of memorandum statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act given by Gopal Soni, other persons Rakesh Singhal, Rajeev Agrawal and Bobby Goyal has also been implicated as accused and aforesaid offence has been registered against them. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before trial Court. Trial Court has framed charges as mentioned hereinabove in paragraph 2 of this order.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners Rajeev Agrawal and Gopal and Others, contended that while framing the charges, trial Court has not considered the whole charge-sheet, there is no such prima facie evidence is available on record in the charge-sheet regarding involvement of petitioners for the aforesaid offences. No allegation has been levelled against them regarding cheating with the complainant and to deliver any property to the complainant or any other person. Confessional statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not admissible as nothing has been seized from accused persons. Petitioners were not named in the FIR. No incriminating article has been recovered from their possession. Therefore, in the absence of necessary ingredients for aforesaid offence, trial Court has committed grave error in framing the aforesaid charges. Hence, he prays that impugned order dated 24.2.2025 be set aside and petitioners be discharged from all the framed charges.
6. In contrary, petitioner/complainant Rajkumar Bhatia has preferred CRR No.1273/2025 by stating that on the basis of written complaint trial Court in its order dated 26.11.2024 observed that offence under Sections Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA Signing time: 8/7/2025 10:50:50 AM 4 CRR-1653-2025 272, 273 and 467 of IPC has been established against petitioners/accused persons and accordingly on the basis of aforesaid offence case has been committed to the Sessions Court. There is sufficient evidence available on record for framing of charges under Sections 272, 273 and 467 of IPC against the accused persons, but trial Court has ignored the material evidence available on record and committed error in not framing charges for the aforesaid offences. Hence, he prayed that impugned order be modified and trial Court be directed to frame additional charges under Section 272, 273 and 467 of IPC.
7. Both the parties opposes the prayer made by each other.
8. Counsel for State also opposes the prayer made by petitioners by supporting the impugned order passed by trial Court.
9. Both the parties heard and perused the charge-sheet and other relevant documents.
10. First of all, CRR No.1273/2025 is being considered, which is the petition for modifying and framing of additional charges against the accused persons.
11. From perusal of order dated 26.11.2024 passed by JMFC, Vijaypur, District Sheopur, it appears that Committal Court has observed that offence under Section 467 of IPC is also made out against the accused persons along with other charges and charges under Section 467 of IPC is exclusively triable by Sessions Court. Therefore, matter is liable to be commit.
12. Provisions of Section 467 of IPC is described as under :-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA Signing time: 8/7/2025 10:50:50 AM5 CRR-1653-2025 "467. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc. --
Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
13. In the instant case, complainant has made a written complaint that accused persons are misusing his brand and selling fake "Bhatia Masale". During investigation, it has been also prima facie gathered that accused persons have committed forgery by fabricating the packing materials in the name of Bhatia Masale. Seized samples were sent for analysis and as per test report submitted by Cali Labs Private Limited the sample was found to be sub-standard and unsafe. On the basis of investigation, it is also prima facie, evident that accused persons fabricated forged packing in the name of Bhatia Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA Signing time: 8/7/2025 10:50:50 AM 6 CRR-1653-2025 Masale, which can be used for delivery of any movable property. Therefore, prima facie, sufficient evidence available on record to frame charges under Section 467 of IPC against the petitioners, but trial Court has ignored the same and committed error in not framing charges under Section 467 of IPC.
14. So far as offences under Section 272 and 273 of IPC are concerned, there is no prima facie evidence regarding the ingredients of offences under Sections 272 and 273 of IPC. Therefore, trial Court has not committed any error for not framing charges under Section 272 and 273 of IPC.
15. Therefore, this criminal revision No.1273/2025 filed by petitioner deserves to be partly allowed and it will be appropriate to issue direction to the trial Court for framing of additional charges under Section 467 of IPC.
16. But, so far as other two criminal Revisions(CRR No.1519/2025 and CRR No.1653/2025) are concerned, after perusal of record and considering all the documents, this Court is of the considered opinion that trial Court has not committed any error in framing charges against the petitioners in CRR No.1519/2025 and CRR No.1653/2025 as for the aforesaid charges test reports are available and on the basis of other prima facie evidence available on record, it is clear that there is prima facie sufficient evidence available on record for framing of aforesaid charges.
17. Counsel for aforesaid petitioners placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vikram Kakati Vs. The State of Assam passed in CRA No.1140/2022 judgment dated 4.8.2022 . But, in the instant case no application under Section 227 of IPC has been filed by these Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA Signing time: 8/7/2025 10:50:50 AM 7 CRR-1653-2025 petitioners. Therefore, this citation is not applicable in the instant case.
18. Apart from above, it is also noteworthy that contentions raised on behalf of petitioners tantamount to putting forth their defence in the matter which cannot be examined without permitting the prosecution to present its case first by leading evidence and only thereafter, the defence version can be examined on touch stone of the prosecutrix evidence. The scope of inquiry at the stage of framing of charges is limited which has laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (Govt. NCT of Delhi) reported in (2009)16 SCC 605 which is reproduced herein below:-
"25. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or offences. For this limited purpose, the Court may sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept as gospel truth all that the prosecution states. At this stage, the Court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is ground for "presuming" that the accused has committed an offence and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction.
19. Hon'ble Apex Court again in the case of Bhawna Bai Vs. Ghanshyam and others, 2020 CRLJ 2092 also held that at the stage of framing charges, trial Court is not required to hold elaborate enquiry and at this stage only prima facie case is to be seen.
20. In the context of observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra(Supra) and Bhawna Bai(Supra), if facts of Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA Signing time: 8/7/2025 10:50:50 AM 8 CRR-1653-2025 the case are examined then both the revision petitions cannot be entertained in the face of specific allegations made against accused persons/petitioners.
21. There is sufficient prima facie evidence available on record for framing the aforesaid charges. The specific defence taken by accused persons cannot be considered at this stage. Therefore, trial Court has not committed error in framing the aforesaid charges.
22. Accordingly, Criminal Revision No.1519/2025 and Criminal Revision No.1653/2025 both are dismissed but Criminal Revision No.1273/2025 filed by petitioner Rajkumar Bhatia is allowed and trial Court is directed to frame charges under Section 467 of IPC against accused persons. However, it is made clear that trial Court will not be influenced by this Court with respect to accused persons and will conduct trial in accordance with law by exercising its own wisdom.
(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE R Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA Signing time: 8/7/2025 10:50:50 AM