Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Kailash on 4 March, 2024
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 4 th OF MARCH, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2465 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION INDUSTRIAL
AREA, RATLAM DISTRICT RATLAM (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANTOSH SINGH THAKUR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
AND
1. KAILASH S/O RATANLAL PATIDAR, AGED ABOUT
61 YEARS, R/O GRAM DELAN PUR RATLAM
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. BALRAM S/O SHANTILAL PATIDAR, AGED ABOUT
19 YEARS, DELANPUR RATLAM (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SAMARTH S/O DEVRAM PATIDAR, AGED ABOUT
63 YEARS, DELANPUR RATLAM (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. RAJESH S/O RAMSINGH PUROHIT, AGED ABOUT
44 YEARS, KARMADI RATLAM (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. ANWAR @ BALLU S/O SIKANDER KHAN, AGED
ABOUT 30 YEARS, DOSI GAON RATLAM (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. RANJEET S/O BABULAL PATIDAR, AGED ABOUT
30 YEARS, DHAMNOD (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. MAHESH S/O JAGDISH CHANDRA PATIDAR
DHAMNOD (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. RAVINDRA S/O ANOKHILAL PATIDAR, AGED
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINDESH
RAIKWAR
Signing time: 3/6/2024
3:19:27 PM
2
ABOUT 23 YEARS, DHAMNOD (MADHYA
PRADESH)
9. SUNIL S/O SATYANARAYAN PATIDAR, AGED
ABOUT 26 YEARS, DHAMNOD (MADHYA
PRADESH)
10. VAJERAM S/O BHUVAN PATIDAR, AGED ABOUT
70 YEARS, DHAMNOD (MADHYA PRADESH)
11. DOULATRAM S/O DAYARAM PATIDAR, AGED
ABOUT 55 YEARS, DELANPUR RATLAM (MADHYA
PRADESH)
12. OMPRAKASH S/O GOVERDHANLAL JAT, AGED
ABOUT 35 YEARS, DELANPUR RATLAM (MADHYA
PRADESH)
13. LAXMAN S/O MOTIRAM PATIDAR, AGED ABOUT
50 YEARS, DELAN PUR RATLAM (MADHYA
PRADESH)
14. SHANTILAL @ SHARMA JI S/O HEERALAL
PATIDAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, DELANPUR
RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
15. VIJAY S/O SAMARTH @ KHEMRAJ MONGIYA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, DELANPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
16. RADHESHYAM S/O SAMRATH PATIDAR, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, DELANPUR RATLAM (MADHYA
PRADESH)
17. LAAKHAN SINGH @ JEEVAN SINGH S/O BHARAT
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, DELANPUR,
RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
18. HARIOM S/O RADHESHYAM PORWAL, AGED
ABOUT 27 YEARS, DELANPUR, RATLAM (MADHYA
PRADESH)
19. RAMUJI @ RAMLAL S/O MOTIRAM PATIDAR,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, DELANPUR, RATLAM
(MADHYA PRADESH)
20. TEJRAM RATANLAL PATIDAR, AGED ABOUT 48
Y E A R S , DELANPUR, RATLAM (MADHYA
PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINDESH
RAIKWAR
Signing time: 3/6/2024
3:19:27 PM
3
21. BHARAT S/O MOTIRAM PATIDAR, AGED ABOUT
37 YEARS, DELANPUR, RATLAM (MADHYA
PRADESH)
22. MUKESH S/O BHARATLAL PATIDAR, AGED
ABOUT 36 YEARS, DELANPUR, RATLAM (MADHYA
PRADESH)
23. MUKESH S/O DUNGA JI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
DELANPUR, RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
24. JAGDISH S/O LAXMAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
DELANPUR, RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
25. VINOD S/O GANPATLAL RATHORE, AGED ABOUT
45 YEARS, 44 RAMGARH TRIPOLIYA GATE
RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
26. PAPPU S/O JAGDISHCHANDRA PATIDAR, AGED
ABOUT 35 YEARS, DELANPUR, RATLAM (MADHYA
PRADESH)
27. JAGDISH S/O PANNALAL PATIDAR, AGED ABOUT
53 YEARS, DELANPUR, RATLAM (MADHYA
PRADESH)
28. HARIOM S/O SHIVRAM PATIDAR, AGED ABOUT 27
Y E A R S , DELANPUR, RATLAM (MADHYA
PRADESH)
29. BANSHILAL S/O RAMESH PATIDAR, AGED ABOUT
22 YEARS, DELANPUR, RATLAM (MADHYA
PRADESH)
30. BABULAL @ JAWAHARLAL S/O MANGILAL
KUMHAR, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, DELANPUR,
RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
31. RAMESHCHANDRA S/O NANDRAM @ SAMARTH
PATIDAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, DELANPUR,
RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
32. KANIRAM S/O DULICHAND PATIDAR, AGED
ABOUT 37 YEARS, DELANPUR, RATLAM (MADHYA
PRADESH)
33. RAKESH S/O SHANTILAL PATIDAR, AGED ABOUT
30 YEARS, DELANPUR, RATLAM (MADHYA
PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINDESH
RAIKWAR
Signing time: 3/6/2024
3:19:27 PM
4
34. PRAKASH S/O MANGILAL MAIDA BHEEL
JAAMTHUN (MADHYA PRADESH)
35. SAMARTHAMAL S/O DHANNALAL PATIDAR,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, MATHURI RATLAM
(MADHYA PRADESH)
36. SHERU PATHAN @ SHER KHAN S/O NANNE KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, AHEMAD KI CHAAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
37. D.P. DHAKAD @ DURGA PRASAD S/O
GOVERDHANLAL DHAKAD, AGED ABOUT 40
YE A R S , GRAM AMBODIYA HAAL MAKUM.
BAAWADI KI CHAAL RATLAM (MADHYA
PRADESH)
38. BHAGWATI D/O KAILASH PATIDAR, AGED ABOUT
39 YEARS, DELANPUR, RATLAM (MADHYA
PRADESH)
39. SUMAN BAI W/O BHAGWATI PATIDAR, AGED
ABOUT 33 YEARS, DELANPUR, RATLAM (MADHYA
PRADESH)
40. MAANGU BAI W/O KAILASH PATIDAR, AGED
ABOUT 55 YEARS, DELANPUR, RATLAM (MADHYA
PRADESH)
41. PRAKASH @ JAYPRAKASH S/O GOVERDHANLAL,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, MAU (MADHYA
PRADESH)
42. RAJESH S/O DASHRATHLAL BHARAWA, AGED
ABOUT 42 YEARS, NAAMLI (MADHYA PRADESH)
43. BHAWARSINGH S/O ARJUNSINGH MONGIYA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, DELANPUR, RATLAM
(MADHYA PRADESH)
44. PRAKASH S/O SAMARATH PATIDAR, AGED
ABOUT 42 YEARS, DELANPUR, RATLAM (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RIZWAN KHAN, ADVOCATE)
This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINDESH
RAIKWAR
Signing time: 3/6/2024
3:19:27 PM
5
following:
ORDER
At the outset, learned Government Advocate/petitioner has submitted that
this petition be allowed and convert this criminal revision into M.Cr.C. under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
2. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent placing reliance
upon the judgment in the case of Manish Vs. State of M.P. and Others passed
Cr.R. 4934/2022 submitted that this criminal revision cannot be converted into
Miscellaneous Criminal Case under Section 482 because inherent powers
cannot be exercised to defeat the provision enshrined under Section 397(2) of
Cr.P.C.
3. Heard both parties and also heard on the point of maintainability of this
revision petition.
4. The present revision has been filed by the petitioner seeking relief to
set aside the order dated 19.04.2023, whereby the learned trial Court has
rejected the petitioner's application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.
5 . It is the settled position of law that revision petitions are not
maintainable against the interlocutory orders. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of K.K. Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and another reported in (2000) 6
SCC 195 has held as under:-
"11. That apart, the view of the learned Single
Judge of the High Court that no revision was
maintainable on account of the bar contained in
Section 397(2) of the Code, is clearly erroneous. It
is now well neigh settled that in deciding whether
an order challenged is interlocutory or not as for
Section 397(2) of the Code, the sole test is not
whether such order was passed during the interim
stage. {vide Amar Nath vs. State of Haryana (1977
4 SCC 137); Madhu Limaye vs. State of
Maharashtra (1977 4 SCC 551); V.C. Shukla vs.
State through CBI (1980 2 SCR 380); and
Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande vs. Uttam(1999 3
SCC 134)}. The feasible test is whether by
upholding the objections raised by a party, would
i t result in culminating the proceedings, if so any
order passed on such objections would not be
merely interlocutory in nature as envisaged in
Section 397(2) of the Code . In the present case, if
the objection raised by the appellants were upheld
by the court the entire prosecution proceedings
would have been terminated. Hence, as per the
said standard, the order was revisable."
6. Thus, if the same test is applied in the present case, it would be
revealed that if the impunged order passed by the learned trial Court has not
been rectified, that would not result in culmination of the proceedings, therefore,
the impunged order dated 19.04.2023 is interlocutory in nature and hence, this
revision is barred under Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C.
7. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shyam Tiwari Vs.
State of M.P. decided on 5.7.2021 in CRR No.807/2021 held as under:-
" 1 0 . In the present case objections have been
raised regarding admissibility of the documentary
evidence, putting up of leading questions and
declaration of a witness as hostile. None of these
objections, if allowed, would result in culmination
of the proceedings. Therefore, the instant revision
deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable in the
light of the bar u/S. 397(2) of the Cr.P.C., and the
law laid down in the cases of K. K. Patel (supra)
and Bhaskar Industries Ltd. (supra)."
8. In view of the aforesaid law, the application under Section 397 of
Cr.P.C. is not maintainable in the case at hand. Since the applicant has taken
shelter of the extraordinary inherent powers enshrined under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., it will be appropriate to decide the matter assuming the maintainability
of the petition. I have gone through the merits of the case, the learned trial Court
has passed the impugned order after proper appreciation of the evidence and
factual matrix of the case, the order is speaking one in which every aspect of the
evidence has been considered. Learned trial Court after analysing the facts of
the case, partly allowed the application and ordered that some of the witnesses
are to be examined whereas rest are not required.
9. On this aspect, the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Amar Nath and others Vs. State of Haryana and others (AIR 1977 SC
2185), wherein it is ordained that :-
"While we fully agree with the view taken by the
learned Judge that where a revision to the High Court
against the order of the Subordinate Judge is expressly
barred under sub-s. (2) of S. 397 of the 1973 Code the
inherent powers contained in s. 482 would not be available
to defeat the bar contained in s. 397(2). Section 482 of the
1973 Code contains the inherent powers of the Court and
does not confer any 'new powers but preserves the powers
which the High Court already possessed. A harmonious
construction of ss. 397 and 482 would lead to the irresistible
conclusion that where a particular order is expressly barred
under s. 397(2) and cannot be the subject of revision by the
High Court, then to such a case the provisions of s.
482 would not apply. It is well settled that the
inherent powers of the, Court can ordinarily be exercised
when there is no express provision on the subject-matter.
Where there is an express provision, barring a particular
remedy, the Court cannot resort to the exercise of inherent
powers."
10. In view of aforesaid settled position of law and also considering the
merits of the order, this Court find that the impugned order is not suffering from
infirmity, impropriety and illegality at this stage. It is pertinent to mention that the
power of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is within the discretion of the learned trial
Court and it should not be easily interfered by the higher Courts. Hence, no
interference is warranted.
11. Under these conditions, this petition is hereby dismissed.
12. Before parting, it is clarified that the learned trial Court will not be
influenced by the observation made hereinabove of this Court while adjudicating
the case in accordance with law in trial.
13. The petitioner is also at liberty to raise all the contentions of the
application in appeal, if required.
Certified copy as per rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
Vindes
