[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hariom Singh Parmar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33388
1 MCRC-41538-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
ON THE 17th OF DECEMBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 41538 of 2025
HARIOM SINGH PARMAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jitendra Kumar Sharma with Ms. Krati Sachdev - Advocate for
the petitioner.
Shri Avinash Kulshrestha - PL for the State.
Shri Nirmal Sharma- Advocate for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of the
BNSS/482 of the Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 07.05.2025 passed
by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Joura District Morena in case no.
Cr.R. No.119/2024 whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner
against the order dated 17.10.2024 passed by the trial court/JMFC Joura has
been dismissed and against the order dated 17.10.2024 passed by the JMFC
in Case No.611/2024 whereby the application under Section 102 of the
Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent No.2 has been allowed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that a private complaint under Section
156(3) of CRPC was filed by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioner
alleging that he is the owner of Excavator Machine and Breaker bearing No.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33388
2 MCRC-41538-2025
35UC9111 which values Rs. 32,50,000/-. The same was parked outside Shala
Wale Hanuman Mandir and Siddh Baba Mandir on 25.02.2024. When the
complainant was sleeping in his house in the night, some strangers stole the
said machine. When the complainant reached at the spot in the morning, he
did not find the said machine there but since it had GPS, the complainant
tracked it and found the same at Village - Dhaneena, PS Jagner, District
Agra. On 26.02.2024, when the complainant along with his father Gaj Singh
Jadon reached Agra, Village Dhaneena, it was found outside the door of one
Hariom Singh Parmar. When the complainant enquired about the same from
Hariom Parmar and asked him why his machine has been brought here, then
he replied that the same was stolen by Deena Sharma, Asharam Parmar and
Satendra Singh Tomar and they have handed over the same to me. The
complainant told Hariom about the theft of the machine and when he wanted
to take the same along with him, Hariom resisted and did not let him take the
machine. After that, the complainant visited Hariom Parmar at many
occasions but he refused to hand over the machine. He submitted a written
application to S.P. Morena, SDOP-Kailaras, SHO-PS Chinnori on
15.03.2024 and to DGP, Bhopal through Email, and again on 18.03.2024,
27.03.2024, he made complaints before the Addl. SP and SP, Morena. He
also filed a complaint on CM Helpline Number but no action to register any
FIR against the accused has ever been made. The act of theft by Hariom
Parmar, Deena Sharma, Asharam Parmar and Satendra Tomar is punishable
offence under Section 379 of IPC and prayed for taking cognizance and
punishing the aforementioned persons. The Respondent No. 2 had taken loan
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33388
3 MCRC-41538-2025
of Rs. 11,67,000/- from the petitioners, but since he could not repay the
same, he pawned the machine with the petitioners and assured that after
some months he will repay the loan and take the machine with him but he did
not repay the same in time, as such the petitioners issued a legal notice
calling upon the respondent to make payment of the loan taken by him.
3. Instead of repaying the loan after receiving the legal notice, the
respondent No. 2 filed the aforementioned private complaint (Annexure-P/3)
before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Joura, District - Morena
against the petitioners with an oblique motive and also filed an application
under Section 102 of CRPC for seizure of the machine by the police and
handing over the same to the Respondent No. 2. The petitioners orally
objected to the said application stating that there is no provision in the CRPC
empowering the magistrate to direct the police to seize any object and
considering the same initially, vide order dated 16.04.2024 the application
(Annexure-P/6) filed by the Respondent No. 2 was rejected observing the
same. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 2 instead of challenging the said order,
filed another application under Section 102 of CRPC and even though after
rejecting the same once, the Court of JMFC has no power to accept the same
but the same was accepted by the Court and vide order dated 17.10.2024 the
Court of JMFC directed the seizure of Excavator Machine under Section 102
of CRPC.
4. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed Criminal
Revision No. 119/2024 before Second Addl. Session Judge - Joura, District-
Morena along with the stay application and vide order dated 27.11.2024, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33388
4 MCRC-41538-2025
order dated 17.10.2024 passed by the Court of JMFC was stayed and
ultimately vide order Annexure-P/1 dated 07.05.2025, the learned trial court
has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner holding the same to
be not maintainable under Section 397(2) of CRPC against interlocutory
order. Hence, this petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the orders passed
by the learned court below are contrary to record perverse and against settled
legal position. When the application under Section 102 of CRPC with respect
to the seizure was finally decided vide order dated 16.04.2024, it could not
be termed as interlocutory order because by the said application the issue
with respect to seizure under Section 102 of CRPC has been finally decided
by the trial court and the right of the parties in respect to the machine were
also decided finally, as such the same is not in interlocutory order but a final
order. Section 397 of CRPC empowers the High Court or Session Court to
satisfy itself with respect to the legality, or propriety or as to the regularity of
proceedings of such inferior court as it may deem fit, as such when there is
culpable error of law the powers under Section 397 can be exercised even in
case of interlocutory order. In the present case the order passed by the
JMFC- Joura (Annexure-P/2) suffers from culpable error because there is no
provision under Section 102 of CRPC for the court to direct seizure because
under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C., the powers lie directly with the police.
Hence, the orders Annexure-P/1 and P/2 are liable to be set aside.
6. The learned trial court had rejected the application under Section
102 of CRPC holding that the court is not empowered to direct seizure. In
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33388
5 MCRC-41538-2025
such circumstances, there was no occasion for the court to allow the same
application at later stage where admittedly there was no change of
circumstances because there is no provision for exercising review powers
under CRPC.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the law lain down in
the case of V.C. Shukla reported in 1980 (Suppl.) SCC 92, Amarnath Vs.
State of Haryana reported in 1977(4) SCC 137, Madhu Limaye Vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in 1977(4) SCC 551 and Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh
Chander & Another reported in 2012(9) SCC 460 and submitted that the
object of Section 397 is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction
of law and the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decision
under challenge are grossly erroneous.
8. The learned court below has committed manifest error in not
deciding the revision petition of the petitioner on the basis of merits and
dismissing it only on the ground of maintainability because under revisional
jurisdiction of the court is required to see whether the court below has
committed any jurisdictional error which is apparent in the present case,
considering which interim relief was also granted in favour of the petitioner.
However, the court below has failed to appreciate the same. Hence, this
petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned orders dated 7.05.2025
passed by the Second Addl. Session Judge, Joura, District -Morena in Case
No. CrR.119/2024 (Annexure-P/1) )and order dated 17.10.2024 passed by
the Court of JMFC, Joura in Case No. 611/2024 be quashed.
9. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 as well as counsel for the State
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33388
6 MCRC-41538-2025
opposed the prayer and prayed for its rejection by supporting the impugned
order and submitted that no illegality has been committed by the courts
below.
10. Heard counsel for the rival parties and perused the entire record
with due care.
11. The present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been
filed for quashing the order dated 07.05.2025 passed by the learned Second
Additional Sessions Judge- Jaura District Morena, whereby the criminal
revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as not maintainable,
holding that the order of the trial court was an interlocutory order, attracting
the bar contained under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C.
12. During the pendency of the proceedings, the learned trial court
passed an order dated 17.10.2024. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant
preferred a Criminal Revision before the Sessions Court, which came to be
dismissed solely on the ground that the order impugned was interlocutory in
nature.
13. Now the primary question arises before this Court is Whether the
order passed by the trial court can be treated as an interlocutory order so as
to bar revision under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C.?
14. The expression "interlocutory order" has not been defined under
the Cr.P.C.. However, the scope of Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. has been
authoritatively settled by judicial pronouncement.
15. In Amar Nath v. State of Haryana , (1977) 4 SCC 137 , the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33388
7 MCRC-41538-2025
"An interlocutory order is one which is purely interim or
temporary in nature and does not decide or touch the important
rights or liabilities of the parties."
16. Subsequently, in the judgment of Madhu Limaye v. State of
Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified:
"Some orders may not be final orders and yet they may not be interlocutory
orders. Such orders fall in the category of intermediate orders, against which
revision is maintainable."
17. The test of finality depends upon whether the order affects the
rights of the accused or decides an important aspect of the trial.
18. Applying the aforesaid principles, this Court finds that the order
passed by the trial court cannot be termed as a purely interlocutory order , as
it has serious consequences on the rights of the petitioner and the
continuation of criminal proceedings.
19. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, committed a
jurisdictional error in dismissing the revision as not maintainable, without
examining whether the impugned order was an intermediate order.
20. Such an approach defeats the very purpose of revisional
jurisdiction and results in miscarriage of justice, which warrants interference
by this Court in exercise of its inherent powers vested under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C.
21. In view of the above discussion, the present petition is allowed.
The impugned order dated 07.05.2025 passed by the Second Additional
Sessions Judge Joura District Morena is hereby set aside. The matter is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33388
8 MCRC-41538-2025
remanded to the revisional court to decide the criminal revision afresh on
merits, in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not
expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
22. With the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
Vishal
