Ashok Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 849 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ashok Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 May, 2025

                                                            1                              CRR-444-2024
                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT INDORE
                                                    CRR No. 444 of 2024
                                            (ASHOK JAIN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )



                          Dated : 17-05-2025
                                Petitioner - Ashok Jain S/o Late Shri Phulchand Jain by Mr. Satyendra
                          Kumar Vyas - Learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Shantanu Sharma -
                          Advocate and Ms. Neha Yadav - Advocate.
                                Respondent - State of Madhya Pradesh by Mr. Anirudh Malpani -

Government Advocate appearing on behalf of Advocate General.

Complainant / Objector - Rajeev Agnihotri S/o Shri Ramshankar Agnihotri by Mr. Vivek Dalal - Advocate.

Today, Shri Anirudh Malpani, learned counsel appearing for revisionist - State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Revision No.925 of 2024 has completed his arguments.

After that reply was given by Shri Satyendra Kumar Vyas, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of accused - Ashok Jain S/o Phulchand Jain and after that Shri Anil Khare, learned Senior Advocate appearing through Video Conferencing for complainant - Rajeev Agnihotri S/o Shri

Ramshankar Agnihotri, revisionist in Criminal Revision No.5422 of 2023 has also supplemented the arguments by clarifying some points.

Final arguments are closed; and order reserved.

Heard on IA No.6903/2025, an application under Section 301 (2) read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 filed on behalf of complainant - Rajeev Agnihotri S/o Shri Ramshankar Agnihotri, seeking

2 CRR-444-2024 leave of this Court to intervene in this revision petition.

Shri Vivek Dalal, learned counsel appearing for complainant has argued on this interlocutory application for assisting the Court.

Learned counsel for the complainant - objector submits that this revision petition has been preferred by accused Ashok Jain S/o Late Shri Phulchand Jain, but the complainant has not been made a party. Learned counsel submits that the complainant is a necessary party in this revision, who has not been arraigned by the petitioner - revisionist, therefore, seeks permission of this Court to intervene in Criminal Revision No.444 of 2024.

Learned counsel for the complainant - objector has placed reliance on a judgment (paragraphs No.13 to 15) delivered by the Apex Court in case of Babloo Pasi v. State of Jharkhand & another reported in (2008) 13 SCC 133 ,

relevant paragraphs No.13 to 15 are extracted, as under: -

"13. At this juncture, it would be profitable to note that Section 54 of the Act also prescribes the procedure to be followed while dealing with inquiries, appeals and revisions under the Act. Sub-section (2) thereof stipulates that save as otherwise expressly provided under the Act, the procedure to be followed in hearing revisions under the Act, shall be as far as practicable in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'). Sub-section (2) of Section 401 of the Code contemplates that no order under the said Section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence.

14. Furthermore, by now it is well settled that save in certain exceptional situations, the principle of audi alteram partem mandates that no one shall be condemned unheard. It is a part of rules of natural justice and the soul of natural justice is `fair play in action', which demands that before any prejudicial or adverse order is passed or action is taken against a person, he must be given an opportunity to be heard.

15. The question for consideration is that when the statutory provisions mandate and principles of natural

3 CRR-444-2024 justice demand a pre-decisional hearing, whether or not the High Court was justified in not granting an opportunity of hearing to the appellant/complainant? In our opinion, having regard to the nature of controversy before the High Court and the scheme of the relevant statutory provisions whereunder the High Court was exercising its jurisdiction, the `fairness in action' did demand that the Complainant was given an opportunity of hearing in the Revision petition preferred by the accused. Moreover, he was impleaded as a party respondent and was obviously prejudiced by the order passed by the High Court when the accused was declared to be a juvenile. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the High Court was clearly in error in reversing the order passed by the Board without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Accordingly, we uphold the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the order of the High Court deserves to be set aside on this short question alone."

On the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the complainant - objector submits that he be allowed to intervene in the revision for assisting this Court in this criminal revision.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revisionist - accused has vehemently opposed the prayer on the ground that this petition has been filed more than one year back and has been listed before the Court for several times, but the complainant never made any request for impleading him as a party. Limitation for filing revision is ninety days, which is also applicable to the complainant - objector. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the complainant himself has filed Criminal Revision No.5422 of 2023 arising out of the same impugned order dated 23.08.2023 passed on Interlocutory Application No.04 of 2021 filed under Section 227 and 228 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on behalf of accused Ashok Jain in Sessions Trial

No.535 of 2021, which is under challenge in all the revision petitions being analogously heard.

4 CRR-444-2024 Learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist Ashok Jain further submits that the sessions trial case is pending before the Sessions Court, Indore is against the revisionist Ashok Jain and State of Madhya Pradesh is the prosecutor, therefore, the State has been arraigned as respondent in Criminal Revision No.444 of 2024. The complainant has no right to be impleaded as respondent in this revision petition. In teeth of fact that Criminal Revision No.5422 of 2023 filed by complainant Rajeev Agnihotri is also pending wherein complainant is represented by Senior Counsel Shri Anil Khare and extensive arguments have been advanced by Shri Anil Khare. He further submits that this application has been filed as a delaying tactics, which could not be favoured and it will not serve any purpose, as Senior Counsel Shri Anil Khare has well represented the complainant and advanced extensive arguments, therefore, prays for dismissing the interlocutory application.

Heard and considered rival submissions raised at bar on IA No.6903 of 2025.

It is not in dispute that Criminal Revision No.444 of 2024 was listed before the Court for the first time on 09.02.2024 and near about more than one year's time it has been listed several times before the Board / Court, but the complainant has never raised any objection with regard to his impleadment or permission to intervene in the matter for assisting the Court. It is also not in dispute that the complainant himself has filed Criminal Revision No.5422 of 2023 being aggrieved by impugned order dated 23.08.2023 discharging the accused Ashok Jain from offences punishable under Sections 406, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

5 CRR-444-2024 Shri Anil Khare, learned Senior Counsel has advanced his arguments in the aforesaid criminal revision touching the law points against the discharge of accused from the aforementioned offences. When the complainant - objector is well represented by a Senior Advocate, it would be mere duplicacy, if any one is allowed to intervene in Criminal Revision No.444 of 2024, which is against the State of Madhay Pradesh filed by accused Ashok Jain. In case of Babloo Pasi v. State of Jharkhand & another (supra), the observations made in paragraphs No.13, 14 and 15 have been made for giving representation / hearing to the accused before passing order under Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, but in the aforesaid criminal revisions, which are before this Court and have been finally heard, the complainant - objector has been given full opportunity of hearing and that opportunity has been availed by the complainant by engaging a senior counsel, therefore, the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in case of Babloo Pasi v. State of Jharkhand & another (supra) relied upon on behalf of the complainant is of no avail.

Accordingly, IA No.6903 of 2025 filed on behalf of the complainant being devoid of any substance, fails and is hereby dismissed.

(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE

rcp