Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pawan Kumar Kurmi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 June, 2025
Author: Atul Sreedharan
Bench: Atul Sreedharan, Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27776
1 WA-2545-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 26th OF JUNE, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 2545 of 2024
PAWAN KUMAR KURMI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shyam Yadav and Shri Aseem Trivedi - Advocates for
the petitioner.
Shri Darshan Soni, Govt. Advocate for respondent State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Atul Sreedharan
The appellant is a practicing Advocate. He states that he was
falsely implicated in a murder case in the year 2009. He filed a Writ
Petition before this Court for quashment of a case registered against
him. Vide order dated 3.8.2009, learned Single Judge only stayed
the arrest of the appellant. Besides that, the Court did not stay the
investigation and the trial proceedings against the appellant. The
trial proceeded against all other co-accused persons and the appellant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27776
2 WA-2545-2024
was declared as an absconder by the trial Court and his case was
separated from that of the other co-accused who were tried and
acquitted on the ground of lack of evidence. Thereafter, the matter
was brought up and the learned Single Judge has dismissed the
petition.
2. The contention put-forth by the learned counsel for the
appellant is that the case against the petitioner ought to have been
quashed by the learned Single Judge exercising the Preliminary
Powers as on the same set of facts and evidence, all other co-accused
were acquitted.
3. The said judgment passed by the learned Single Judge
cannot be faulted with as the appellant, never stood the due process
of the trial and was declared an absconder, his case was separated
from the other co-accused persons and evidence was only adduced to
ascertain the guilt or innocence of those who stood trial before the
learned trial Court and undisputedly, the appellant herein was not
one of them. The evidence which had been adduced before the trial
Court would only be applicable to the co-accused persons. What
evidence may have been adduced by the witnesses as against the
appellant herein lies in the realm of speculation and the same cannot
be entered into by the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C/W.P. or by
this Court in Writ Appeal. The correct procedure for the petitioner
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27776
3 WA-2545-2024
would have to stand trail where the witnesses would be recalled and
he would have been given an opportunity to cross-examine them.
The outcome cannot be predicted by this Court as to what the
witnesses would state before learned trial Court once called to record
their evidence against the present appellant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v.
State of Gujarat [2023 INSC 829]. In that case the appellant before
the Supreme Court was convicted by the trial Court while the co-
accused was acquitted. The issue before the Supreme Court was
whether on the basis of identical allegations and identical evidence
adduced before the trial Court, one accused could be acquitted and
other convicted. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn
attention of this Court to paragraph No. 15 of the said judgment
where the Supreme Court has held that in similar or identical
evidence of eye witnesses against two accused, by ascribing to them
the similar or same role, the Court cannot convict one accused and
convict the other. It further held that in such a case both the accused
would be governed by the principle of parity. In that case, both
accused had stood the entire course of the trial. The case of the
appellant herein is entirely different. The appellant never stood the
trial and was an absconder and, therefore, the judgment in Javed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27776
4 WA-2545-2024
Shaukat Ali Qureshi (supra) will not be applicable in the facts and
circumstances of the case against the appellant herein.
5. Therefore, in view of what has been argued before this
Court and considered herein above, the appeal sans merit and is
accordingly dismissed. The operative part of the order passed by the
learned Single Judge shall be enforced forthwith.
6. The appeal stands disposed of.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) (DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
VKT
