Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinod Bohare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 October, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26036
1 MCRC-8952-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 13th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 8952 of 2015
VINOD BOHARE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Kumar Shukla - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Samar Ghuraiya Dy Ga appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
ORDER
The petitioner is filing the present petition invoking the inherent powers of this Hon'ble Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 01.08.2015 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, District Bhind, in Criminal Revision No. 118/2015, whereby the order dated 15.06.2015 passed by the learned CJM, Bhind in Criminal Case No. 966/2008 dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 217 Cr.P.C. was affirmed.
2. As per prosecution story, the complainant has lodged a report against the petitioner that he had purchased a tractor from the agency run by the petitioner. According to the complainant, he deposited an amount of Rs. 3,21,000/- with the owner of the tractor agency. It is further alleged that even after depositing the amount, the petitioner forcibly took back the tractor along with a cultivator nearly four years ago and did not return the same. On Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 19-11-2025 18:59:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26036 2 MCRC-8952-2015 the basis of the said complaint, Police Station Dehat Kotwali registered Crime No. 78/2008 for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. After completing the investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhind. The learned CJM framed charges under Sections 420 and 406 IPC.
3. The petitioner challenged the framing of charges by filing Criminal Revision No. 227/2009, which was allowed on 17.03.2010, and the matter was remitted back for reconsideration.
4. The petitioner then moved a discharge application before the trial court. The application was rejected on the ground that charges were already framed. This order was challenged in Criminal Revision No. 882/2011, which was allowed on 17.11.2011, and again the matter was remanded. The trial court then reconsidered the matter and held that no prima facie case under Section 420 IPC was made out, but it framed charge under Section 406 IPC. This order was again challenged by the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 329/2010, which was allowed. This Court set aside the charge under Section 406 IPC and directed that if any other charge is made out, it may be framed. In compliance of the order, the trial court passed an order on 02.03.2015 holding that prima facie a charge under Section 403 IPC was made out. Accordingly, the trial court framed charge under Section 403 IPC on 07.04.2015.
5. After the fresh charge was framed, the petitioner filed an application under Section 217 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of all prosecution witnesses so that the evidence may be recorded afresh because the nature of Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 19-11-2025 18:59:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26036 3 MCRC-8952-2015 the charge had changed. However, the application was dismissed by the learned trial court on 15.06.2015. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed Criminal Revision No. 118/2015 before the Sessions Court. The revisional court affirmed the order of the trial court and dismissed the revision petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that after several rounds of revision, the originally framed charges under Sections 420 and 406 were set aside. A new and distinct charge under Section 403 IPC was framed on 07.04.2015. This charge is materially different in nature and ingredients from the earlier charges. Therefore, in the interest of justice, evidence recorded on earlier charges cannot simply be relied upon without giving the petitioner a proper opportunity to cross-examine or re-examine witnesses in light of the changed charge. It has been argued that the Section 217 Cr.P.C. provides that whenever a charge is altered or added, the accused has a right to recall or re-summon witnesses. It has further been argued that denying an opportunity to recall witnesses after alteration of the charge deprives the petitioner of a fair chance to defend himself. Such refusal directly results in prejudice, because evidence recorded under earlier charges cannot be safely applied to a different offence requiring different mental elements. It has been argued that both the trial court and the revisional court passed orders without proper legal reasoning, without considering the specific requirement under Section 217 Cr.P.C., and without discussing how the petitioner would not be prejudiced. It has been argued that the impugned orders dated 15.06.2015 and 01.08.2015 passed by the Courts below are contrary to the mandate of Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 19-11-2025 18:59:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26036 4 MCRC-8952-2015 Section 217 Cr.P.C. and have resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. The learned courts below have failed to recognise that the charge now framed under Section 403 IPC is fundamentally different from earlier charges and therefore fresh evidence recording is essential. Refusal to recall witnesses has caused serious prejudice to the defence of the petitioner, which cannot be cured at a later stage of the trial. It has further been argued that the orders passed by the Courts below are mechanical and non-speaking in nature. Learned counsel further argued that the learned trial court and the learned revisional court have failed to consider the mandatory requirement of Section 217 of the Cr.P.C. While passing the impugned orders, both courts overlooked the legal consequence that arises when a charge is altered during trial. This non-consideration of the statutory provision renders the impugned orders unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed.
7. Per contra learned Government Advocate submitted that the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable, as the petitioner has failed to show any abuse of process of law or any circumstance warranting interference with concurrent orders passed by the courts below. Both the learned CJM, Bhind and the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind have passed well-reasoned orders rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 217 Cr.P.C. The revisional court has rightly affirmed the order dated 15.06.2015 after considering all relevant material and prayed for rejection of this petition.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. Section 217 Cr.P.C. is relevant which is reproduced as follows:
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 19-11-2025 18:59:08NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26036 5 MCRC-8952-2015 Section 217 - Recall of witnesses when charge is altered:
When a charge is altered or added after the commencement of trial, both the prosecution and the accused shall be permitted: to recall and re-examine any witness already examined, with reference to the altered or added charge, unless the Court records reasons in writing that such recall is intended only to cause delay, vexation, or to defeat justice; and to produce any additional witness whom the Court considers material.
10. Section 217 Cr.P.C. mandates that whenever a charge is altered or added during trial, both parties must be given a fair opportunity to recall or re-summon witnesses if such alteration causes prejudice. In the present case, the charges originally framed under Sections 420 and 406 IPC have been completely set aside. A distinct and different charge under Section 403 IPC has been framed after several rounds of revision. The ingredients of Section 403 IPC differ substantially from those of Sections 420 and 406 IPC. Therefore, the evidence recorded earlier on the basis of the earlier charges cannot automatically be made applicable to the newly framed charge. The petitioner is entitled to an opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses afresh to meet the new charge effectively. Refusal to grant such an opportunity has resulted in clear prejudice to the defence. The orders passed by the trial court and the revisional court do not consider the mandatory requirement of Section 217 Cr.P.C. and are mechanical and non- speaking in nature.
11. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the orders dated 15.06.2015 passed by the learned CJM, Bhind and 01.08.2015 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind cannot be sustained in law. Once the earlier charges under Sections 420 and Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 19-11-2025 18:59:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26036 6 MCRC-8952-2015 406 IPC were set aside, and a fresh and distinct charge under Section 403 IPC was framed on 07.04.2015, it became mandatory for the trial court to consider the requirement under Section 217 Cr.P.C. The said provision grants an accused a clear right to recall or re-summon witnesses when a new or altered charge is introduced during trial, so that no prejudice is caused to the defence.
12. In the present case, the nature and ingredients of the newly framed charge under Section 403 IPC are materially different from the earlier charges. Therefore, the petitioner was legally entitled to an opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses afresh in light of the changed charge. The refusal of such an opportunity has resulted in serious prejudice to the petitioner and has denied him a fair chance to defend himself. The orders passed by the courts below are mechanical, non-speaking, and are contrary to the mandate of Section 217 Cr.P.C.
13. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 15.06.2015 and 01.08.2015 passed by the Courts below are hereby quashed. The trial court is directed to permit the petitioner to recall the prosecution witnesses, limited to the extent necessary for a fair and proper adjudication of the newly framed charge under Section 403 IPC, and thereafter proceed with the trial in accordance with law.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE (aspr) Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 19-11-2025 18:59:08