[Cites 23, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vishal Jaiswani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37477
1 CRR-5596-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5596 of 2025
VISHAL JAISWANI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Virendra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners through VC.
Shri Rahul Solanki appearing on behalf of Advocate General[r-1].
Shri Awadhesh Pratap Singh Sisodiya, learned counsel for the
respondent [COMP].
Heard On:05.12.2025
Delivered On:18.12.2025
ORDER
1. I.A. No.16463/2025, an application filed under section 301(2) of
Cr.P.C, 1973/ under Section 338(2) of BNSS, 2023 is presented by the
victim, is allowed and he is permitted to assist the public prosecutor through
counsel Shri Awadesh Pratap Singh Sisodiya, Advocate.
2. This criminal revision is preferred under Section 442 read with
Section 438 of BNSS, 2023 challenging the legality of the order dated
08.11.2025 passed in ST No.696/2025 by 13th Additional Sessions Judge,
Indore whereby the charges under Section 420 alternatively 420 r/w 34 of
IPC, under Section 420 alternatively 420 r/w 34 of IPC, under Section 419
alternatively 419 r/w 34 of IPC, under Section 420 alternatively 420 r/w 34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37477
2 CRR-5596-2025
of IPC, under Section 467 alternatively 467 r/w 34 of IPC, under Section 468
alternatively 468 r/w 34 of IPC and under Section 471 alternatively 471 r/w
34 of IPC have been framed against the revision petitioners arising out of the
Crime No.71/2025 registered at Crime Branch, Indore.
3. Facts in brief are that the complainant Kalga Venkata Naga
Shrivaniwas filed a written complaint on 25.02.2025 regarding cheating
through impersonation of a woman through marriage proposal and receiving
of huge amount. A crime No.71/2025 was registered under Section 419,
420/34 of IPC against Vishal Jaiswani and Simran Jaiswani and the user of
bank account in which the amount was transferred. After investigation,
evidence regarding forgery was also collected and the name of 3rd accused
was ascertained as Love Makhijani and final report was submitted disclosing
the offence under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of IPC.
4. The learned trial Court framed the charged as mentioned in para
no.1 of this order.
5. Challenging the framing of charges, this criminal revision petition
has been filed on behalf of the revision petitioners on the ground that no
offence under section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of IPC is made out
against them. The learned trial Court has totally failed to consider and
appreciate the material facts that the averments made in the complaint,
statement of the complainant and other material on record will give the
exclusive conclusion and inferences that the entire criminal proceedings is
sheer misused and abuse of process of law. The continuance of the
proceedings against the revision petitioners will cause miscarriage and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37477
3 CRR-5596-2025
failure of justice and valuable rights of the revision petitioner to earn
livelihood. The revision petitioners have relied upon Haryana Financial
Corporation vs. Jagdamba OIl Mills; AIR 2002 SC 834.
6. Heard.
7. Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer.
8. Counsel for the objector has also opposed the revision petition
vehemently.
9. Perused the material filed with the revision petition as well as the
case diary made available by the prosecution.
10. Before dealing with the rival contentions, it is appropriate to
refer to the scope of exercise of power under section 227 of the Cr.P.C or
presently section 250 of the BNSS, 2023. The Apex Court in P.Vijayan vs.
State of Kerala and another - (2010) 2 SCC 398, made an in-depth
consideration regarding the scope of power under section 227 Cr.P.C and
held thus:
"10. Before considering the merits of the claim of both the
parties, it is useful to refer to Section 227 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, which reads as under:
"227. Discharge. -- If, upon consideration of the record of
the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing
the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf,
the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and
record his reasons for so doing."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37477
4 CRR-5596-2025
If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion
only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be
empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage he is not to
see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. Further,
the words "not sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused" clearly show that the Judge is not a mere post office to
frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to
exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to
determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the
prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the court
to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and
balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the
function of the court, after the trial starts.
11. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift
the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused. In other words, the
sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the
evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before
the court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious
circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against
him."
11. In Sajjan Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation -(2010) 9
SCC 368,(2010) 9 SCC 368, the Apex Court has laid down certain
guiding principles for discharge as under:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37477
5 CRR-5596-2025
"21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of
Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles
emerge:
(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the
charges under Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted power to sift
and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out
whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been
made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend
upon the facts of each case.
(ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose
grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly
explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and
proceeding with the trial.
(iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a
mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad
probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the
documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities, etc.
However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the
pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was
conducting a trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could
form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it
can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is
required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37477
6 CRR-5596-2025
has committed the offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative
value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before
framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the
material placed on record and must be satisfied that the
commission of offence by the accused was possible.
(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is
required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a
view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face
value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the
alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it
cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the
prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common
sense or the broad probabilities of the case.
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to
suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial
Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this
stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or
acquittal."
12. The position of law enunciated in the said decisions reveals that
while invoking the power under section 227 of the Cr.P.C, the judge
concerned has to consider only the record of the case and the document
produced along with the same. If on such consideration, the Court formed an
opinion that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37477
7 CRR-5596-2025
concerned, he shall be discharged after recording the reasons therefor. It is
also evident from the precedence on the aforesaid question that while
exercising the said power, the Court could sift the materials produced along
with the final report only for the purpose of considering the question whether
there is ground to proceed against the accused concerned.
13. The further limitation that at the stage of framing of charge or
considering the discharge application, the impermissibility of mini trial as
laid down in State of Rajasthan vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap - 2021 SCC
OnLine SC 314 is being referred as under:
"At the stage of framing of the charge and /or considering
the discharge application, the mini trial is not permissible."
14. In CBI vs. Aryan Singh -2023 SCC Online SC 379 also, the
same position of law has been reiterated. The relevant paragraph from the
said judgment is extracted herein below:
"Para 10 ....As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage
of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while
exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not
required to conduct the mini trial.
At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court has a very limited
jurisdiction and is required to consider "whether any sufficient
material is available to proceed further against the accused
for which the accused is required to be tried or not."
15. Now, come to the fact of this case. Final report has been
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37477
8 CRR-5596-2025
submitted under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., 1973 and the documents submitted
with the final report reveals that revision petitioner Simran Jaiswani made a
fake profile in the name of Barkha Jaiswani using the photograph of
Instagram user Anisa on Bharat Matrimony App and answer the query of
complainant and in conspiracy with her brother revision petitioner Vishal
Jaiswani and her husband Love Makhijani obtained an amount of more than
Rs.2,60,00,000/- between the period April, 2023 to June, 2024 using four
accounts and thereafter forged the foreign remittance slips to show that they
returned the amount of Rs.32,00,000/- to the complainant.
16. The above material collected during the investigation satisfied the
standard of "grave suspicion" as required for framing of charges as framed
against the revision petitioners. The learned trial Court has not justified the
framing of charges referring to any case law and the trial Court has framed
the charges as involved on the strength of material available on record.
Reference of Haryana Financial Corporation (supra) does not help the
revision petitioners. The grounds raised by the revision petitioners may be a
ground of defense , but not a ground for discharge. Hence, this criminal
revision is having no substance and the same is hereby dismissed.
17. A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court concerned
for information.
Pending application, if any stands closed.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37477
9 CRR-5596-2025
AMIT
