Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Neeta Srathe vs Anand Tiwari on 26 August, 2025
1
Cr.R.No.3754-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.3754/2025
(SMT. NEETA SARUTHE V. ANAND TIWARI)
Dated : 26.08.2025
Applicant by Shri Vaibhav Kumar Pandey - Advocate.
Respondent by Shri Ranjeet Dwivedi - Advocate.
................................................................................................................................................
Record of the Courts below received.
2. Heard on I.A.No.18891/2025, which is an application for
exemption from arrest of the applicant.
3. This criminal revision u/s 438/442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. has been filed by the applicant against
judgment dated 25.07.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bareli
District Raisen in Criminal Appeal No.41/2024 arising out of judgment
dated 13.07.2023 passed by JMFC, Bareli District Raisen in Criminal
Case No.SCNIA/39/2023, whereby the applicant has been convicted for
offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and
sentenced to undergo RI for one year and compensation of Rs.6,05,000/-
and litigation expenses, with default stipulations. Notably, the Appellate
Court has reduced the period of sentence from one year to till rising of
the Court, although remaining order has been kept intact.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the
applicant is a lady and a Government Teacher and if she is taken into
judicial custody, she would lose her job and her future prospects would
be ruined. He also submitted that the applicant has already deposited
the compensation amount and the cost of litigation as imposed by the
Cr.R.No.3754-2025
trial Court. Therefore, the applicant may be exempted from arrest in
execution of sentence. In other words, the applicant is seeking
exemption from surrender as required under Rule 48 of Chapter-X of the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008 (in short "Rules, 2008").
5. To reinforce his contentions, learned counsel has placed
reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vivek Rai
& Anr. v. High Court of Jharkhand Thr. Reg. Gen. & Ors. 2015(12)
SCC 86. He also relied upon the order dated 08.04.2025 passed by
Coordinate Bench of this Court at Gwalior Bench in Cr.R.
No.3651/2024 (Bhagwat Swaroop Pachauri v. Om Prakash Gupta).
He also relied upon an order 20.02.2024 passed by the Coordinate
Bench in Cr.R. No.729/2024 (Sanjay Nagayach v. The State of
Madhya Pradesh). He also relied upon a decision in the case of
Easwaramurthy v. N. Krishnaswamy, 2006 Cri.L.J. 4105.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that
Rule 48 of Rules, 2008 is mandatory, therefore, non-compliance of the
same will render the revision petition not maintainable.
7. At this juncture, it is imperative to quote Rule 48 of Rules,
2008, as under:-
48. A memorandum of appeal or revision petition
against conviction, except in cases where the sentence
has been suspended by the Court below, shall contain a
declaration to the effect that the convicted person is in
custody or has surrendered after the conviction.
Where the sentence has been so suspended, the factum
of such suspension and its period shall be stated in the
memorandum of appeal or revision petition, as also in
the application under section 430 of the Sanhita, 2023.
An application under section 430 of the Sanhita, 2023
shall, as far as possible, be in Format No. 11 and shall
Cr.R.No.3754-2025
be accompanied by an affidavit of the
appellant/applicant or some other person acquainted
with the facts of the case.
8. Now, I feel it apposite to go-through the settled legal
position. The Supreme Court in Daulat Singh v. The State of Madhya
Pradesh rendered in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary
No(s).20900/2024 while dealing with Rule 48 of Rules, 2008 and
considering the case of Vivek Rai (supra), has categorically held as
under:-
"15. We do not, therefore, consider it appropriate to
accept as a sound proposition of law that a high court, in
exercise of its inherent power, may grant exemption from
surrendering in a particular case despite concurrent
findings of conviction oblivious of the duty of giving
effect to orders passed under the Code and/or to prevent
abuse of the process of a court."
9. Of-late, the Coordinate Bench of this Court passed an order
dated 05.08.2025 in the case of Satish Sharma v. Dharmendra Shukla
in Criminal Revision No.1124/2025, wherein, while considering the
various judgments, including the judgment rendered in Daulat Singh
(supra), it has been held that the criminal revision is not maintainable for
want of non-compliance of Rule 48 of Rules, 2008.
10. A combined reading of the law laid down in Daulat Singh
(supra) with regard to effect of Rule 48 of Rules, 2008 and in Satish
Sharma (supra), makes it crystal clear that the canons relied upon on
behalf of the applicants have no applicability in the case at hand.
11. In view of the above settled legal position, when there is
apparent non-compliance of the Rule 48 of Rules, 2008, this Court is
Cr.R.No.3754-2025
reluctant to allow this application. Accordingly, the application
(I.A.No.18891/2025) is hereby dismissed.
12. If the applicant is so advised, may surrender before the
Court below.
13. List this matter on 15.09.2025 for further orders.
(RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY)
JUDGE
sudesh
