Madhya Pradesh High Court
Navneet Sharan Gupta vs Shivam Gupta on 26 August, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19464
1 CRR-4971-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 26th OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4971 of 2024
NAVNEET SHARAN GUPTA
Versus
SHIVAM GUPTA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nikhil Bhatele - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Sumant Mishra - Advocate for respondent No. 1.
ORDER
This criminal revision under Section 438 read with Section 442 of
Bhartiya Nyay Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short "BNSS") has been
preferred being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.09.2024
passed by Special Judge (MPDVPK Act), Datia in Case No. UNCR
No.304/2023, whereby complaint filed by the petitioner for taking
cognizance of offence under Sections 395, 403, 427, 506 of IPC and
Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act has been rejected.
2. Facts lying in a narrow compass are that the petitioner preferred
a private complaint against respondent No. 1 by stating that on
16.11.2013 at about 09:36 AM, respondent No. 1/accused Shivam Gupta
came to his house along with other persons and they jointed a ladder
with the petitioner's house and entered into the house. They called one
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19464
2 CRR-4971-2024
more person carrying cutter machine. When petitioner saw the incident
in CCTV Camera of his house, he shouted for help. After entering into
the house, accused persons cut the lock of stairs with a cutter machine
and also cut the cable of CCTV Camera. Thereafter, they entered into the
petitioner's room and asked for file of the case. When petitioner said that
he does not have the file, then they opened briefcase lying in the room
and took away cash of Rs.2,50,000/- lying in briefcase and also took
away CCTV Camera costing around Rs.5,000/- and threatened to life.
They went down stairs and locked the stairs and illegally confined the
petitioner in his house up to 01:10 PM. Complainant tried to lodge the
FIR at Police Station Datia but his FIR was not lodged, thereafter, he
filed a private complaint before the Trial Court.
3. The Trial Court after recording preliminary evidence of
complainant Navneet, Vanmali and Tej Singh under Section 200 and
202 of CrPC heard on the point of registration and vide order dated
06.09.2024 dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner. Being
aggrieved by the impugned order, petitioner preferred this criminal
revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the statement
of complainant is well supported by witnesses Vanmali and Tej Singh,
but the Trial Court has not taken them into consideration. It is well
settled law that pendency of civil proceedings cannot stop the parties to
take legal recourse in case of any criminal offence. Petitioner also filed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19464
3 CRR-4971-2024
photos of CCTV Cameras and other documentary evidence, but same
has been ignored by the Trial Court, therefore, the impugned order
passed by the Trial Court is arbitrary, perverse against the law. Hence,
learned counsel prays that the impugned order be set aside and aforesaid
offence be registered against respondent No. 1. In support of his
contention, learned counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the
Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumari Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
and others reported in (2006) 2 SCC 677.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 opposed the
prayer and prayed for its rejection by supporting the impugned order
passed by the Trial Court.
6. Considered the rival contentions advanced on behalf of both the
parties.
7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and after
perusing the statements of complainant and other witnesses recorded
under Sections 200 and 202 of CrPC, it appears that there is material
contradiction and omission in the statements regarding the manner of
incident. As per the direction issued by the Trial Court, enquiry report
has been submitted by SHO, Kotwali, District Datia. As per the enquiry
report, it has been found that both the parties are residing in the disputed
house and dispute regarding house is still pending before the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh Bench Gwalior. Photographs filed by the petitioner
are not legible, therefore, these photographs do not support the case of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19464
4 CRR-4971-2024
the petitioner.
8. On the basis of aforesaid documents, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the reason assigned by the Trial Court for not
taking cognizance of offence against respondent No. 1 appears to be just
and proper, therefore, it cannot be said that the Trial Court has
committed any error in rejecting the private complaint filed by the
petitioner. Impugned order does not suffer from any perversity or
illegality. Hence, no interference is required in the instant matter.
9. Consequently, this criminal revision is dismissed being devoid
of merits.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Abhi
