[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajay Jain vs Razamohammad on 11 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 36327
1 CRR. No. 5002 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 11th OF DECEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5002 of 2024
AJAY JAIN
Versus
RAZAMOHAMMAD
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Vivek Dalal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Kanhaiya Lal Jat - Advocate for the respondent No.1.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 02.12.2025
Pronounced on : 11.12.2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
This criminal revision under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Code") is preferred being
aggrieved by the order dated 09.08.2024 in CRR No.19/2023 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Badnawar, District: Dhar arising out of
order dated 04.07.2023 in URC No.25/2021 by JMFC, Badnawar, Dhar
whereby setting aside the order dated 04.07.2023 and remanded the matter
back to the trial Court to pass a fresh order after providing the opportunity
of hearing to both the parties.
2. The facts in brief are that the respondent filed a complaint
(Annexure P-15) against the 26 proposed accused including the present
revision petitioner for taking congnizance of offences punishable under
Sections 420, 367, 368 r/w Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code alleging
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 36327
that the government land have been mutated in their names and the same
are being alienated by issuing advertisement. The land was mentioned as
Survey Nos. 2596, 2597, 2598, 2626, 2627, 2628, 2629, 2630 and
2979/2121 total admeasuring 10.280 hectares and Survey Nos.2624, 2625
admeasuring total 2.754 hectare are situated at Village Badnawar, District
Dhar of Patwari Halka No.15, Badnawar, District Dhar. Vide order dated
04.07.2023 JMFC, Badnawar, District Dhar dismissed the complaint under
Section 203 of the Code. The order of JMFC, Dhar was challenged through
CRR No.19/2023 and the Additional Sessions Judge, Badnawar, Dhar
allowed the revision to the extent as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment.
Challenging the order, this revision petition has been preferred on the
ground that revision petitioner/ proposed accused were not provided
opportunity of hearing before the Additional Sessions Judge, hence, the
order suffers from illegality.
3. Counsel for the respondent/complainant have opposed the revision
petition raising the contention that there is no provision that proposed
accused be provided any opportunity of hearing. He prays for dismissal of
present revision.
4. Heard both the parties and perused the record.
5. In this case it is not in dispute that the notice was not issued to any
of the proposed accused including the present revision petitioner. To
answer the question raised in this revision petition, this Court is
reproducing the para 53 of the Apex Court judgment in the case of
Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia & Anr. vs. Shaileshbai Mohanbhai
Patel & Ors. [(2012) 10 SCC 517]. For ready reference, para 53 is
reproduced below:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 36327
53. We are in complete agreement with the view expressed by
this Court in Sundarrajan v. R. Vidhya Sekar, (2004) 13 SCC
472, Raghu Raj Singh Rousha v. Shivam Sundaram
Promoters (P) Ltd., (2009) 2 SCC 363 and N. Santhanam v.
K. Elangovan, (2012) 12 SCC 321. We hold, as it must be,
that in a revision petition preferred by complainant before the
High Court or the Sessions Judge challenging an order of the
Magistrate dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the
Code at the stage under Section 200 or after following the
process contemplated under Section 202 of the Code, the
accused or a person who is suspected to have committed crime
is entitled to hearing by the revisional court. In other words,
where complaint has been dismissed by the Magistrate under
Section 203 of the Code, upon challenge to the legality of the
said order being laid by the complainant in a revision petition
before the High Court or the Sessions Judge, the persons who
are arraigned as accused in the complaint have a right to be
heard in such revision petition. This is a plain requirement of
Section 401(2) of the Code. If the revisional court overturns
the order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint and the
complaint is restored to the file of the Magistrate and it is sent
back for fresh consideration, the persons who are alleged in the
complaint to have committed crime have, however, no right to
participate in the proceedings nor they are entitled to any
hearing of any sort whatsoever by the Magistrate until the
consideration of the matter by the Magistrate for issuance of
process. We answer the question accordingly. The judgments
of the High Courts to the contrary are overruled.
6. The position of law as enunciated in the above paragraph is clear
that the accused or a person who is suspected to have committed the crime
is entitled to hearing by the Revisional Court in a challenge to the order of
the Magistrate dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Code at
the stage under Section 200 or after following the process contemplated
under Section 202 of the Code.
7. Accordingly, the revision petition succeeds and the impugned order
of Revisional Court is set aside and the Revisional Court is directed to
decide the revision petition afresh after affording the opportunity of
hearing to the respondent in the case. Since the revision petitioner has
marked appearance so he be remaine present before the Revisional Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 36327
on 08.01.2026 and the rest of the respondents in the case be intimated
through notice.
8. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
Vatan
