Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arvind Singh Patel @ Arvind Jat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 November, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:57583
1 CRR-3605-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 13th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3605 of 2025
ARVIND SINGH PATEL @ ARVIND JAT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Anil Khare - Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Priyank Agrawal -
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sanjay Sarwate - Advocate for respondent - S.P.E.
Reserved on : 13.10.2025
Pronounced on : 13.11.2025
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
This criminal revision under Section 438 read with Section 442 of
the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is filed by the petitioner
being aggrieved of the order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the learned
Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Narsinghpur (M.P.)
in SC LOK No.06/2023, whereby charges have been framed against the
petitioner for offence under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:57583
2 CRR-3605-2025
Act, 1988.
2. Shri Anil Khare, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner had preferred a petition under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C., challenging the order dated 09.07.2020, whereby the application
preferred by the prosecution for summoning the petitioner for giving
voice sample, without affording an opportunity of being heard, was
allowed. The said petition was registered as M.Cr.C. No.28571/2020,
which was withdrawn by the petitioner on 06.10.2020.
3. Thereafter, the petitioner again approached the High Court by filing
a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the FIR
bearing crime No.218/2018, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide
order dated 20.11.2020 in M.Cr.C. No.40584/2020.
4. It is submitted that according to the prosecution, complainant
Chandrashree made a written complaint on 07.08.2018 to the
respondents that she is posted as Secretary, Gram Panchayat Surajgaon.
Allegation is that on 21.07.2018, co-accused Shweta Bisen, C.E.O.,
Janpad Panchayat Narsinghpur made a visit to Gram Panjra of her Gram
Panchayat Surajgaon. At that time, Rozgar Sahayak Devendra Dixit,
husband of Sarpanch namely Naresh Mehra and Mahesh Patel were
present in Gram Panjra. Complainant had received a phone call from
Rozgar Sahayak Devendra Dixit informing her about examination of the
C.C. road by the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat and asked
her to pay certain bills of the C.E.O. Madam, which became the starting
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:57583
3 CRR-3605-2025
point for investigation.
5. The main contention put forth by Shri Anil Khare, learned Senior
counsel is that charges against the petitioner are not sustainable in the
eyes of law, as no offence under Section 12 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act is made out. There is no evidence to point out that the
petitioner abetted the main accused Shweta Bisen in demanding the
bribe amount.
6. Reliance is place on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
case of Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4,
wherein it is held that if two views are equally possible and the Judge is
satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some
suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully
within his right to discharge the accused.
7. Reliance of also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel Vs. State of Gujarat,
(2019) 16 SCC 547, wherein it is held that Court is not required to
merely act as a Post Office, but is required to sift the material before it.
8. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in case of Asim Shariff Vs. NIA, (2019) 7 SCC 148, reaffirming the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Prafulla Kumar
Samal (supra).
9. It is submitted that there is no prima facie case made out against the
petitioner for offence punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:57583
4 CRR-3605-2025
the Corruption Act, 1988. It is further submitted that there is no
implicative evidence in the charge-sheet giving rise to a triable case. It is
submitted that allegation is unsubstantiated that when complainant had
met Shweta Bisen and recorded the conversation, at that time petitioner
was present and he allegedly abetted the demand of bribe to Shweta
Bisen. It is pointed out that in the report of the State Forensic Science
Laboratory, it is opined that voice sample does not appear to be natural
voice of the petitioner and, therefore, in view of the aforesaid, it is
prayed that order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge,
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Narsinghpur (M.P.) in SC LOK
No.06/2023 and all consequential proceedings, be set aside and the
appellant be discharged.
10. It is also submitted that the question which arises is whether abetter
can join subsequently and when the voice sample did not match, then
can there be a trial despite non-matching of the voice sample. Reliance is
also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case
of Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan Vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others,
(2015) 3 SCC 123.
11. Shri Sanjay Sarwate, learned counsel for the respondent, in his
turn, submits that in case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Government of NCT
of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731, Constitution Bench of Supreme Court held
that even in the absence of there being a direct, primary, oral or
documentary evidence, it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:57583
5 CRR-3605-2025
of culpability/guilt of a public servant based on other evidence,
including circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution.
12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, learned trial Court has recorded a finding that Shweta Bisen
while posted as Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat
Narsinghpur, as a public servant, had inspected C.C. road on 21.07.2018
constructed at village Panjra of Gram Panchayat Surajgaon. The
allegation is that in lieu of not to proceed against complainant
Chandrashree, bribe was demanded. Shweta Bisen had received a sum of
Rs.10,000/- through Sub Engineer Rahul Dole. The allegation on the
present petitioner is that he had abetted the crime.
13. Charges have been framed against the present petitioner Arvind
Singh Patel @ Arvind Jat under Section 12 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, whereas against the main accused namely Sweta Bisen,
charges have been framed under Sections 7(A) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act.
14. When we go through Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, then it is event that Section 12 provides for punishment for abetment
of offences defined in Section 7 or 11. Language of the Section is
unambiguous and provides that "whoever abets any offence punishable
under Section 7 or Section 11, whether or not that offence is committed
in consequence of that abetment, shall be punishable with imprisonment
..... ....".
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:57583
6 CRR-3605-2025
15. In the present case, allegation on the petitioner is of abetment.
Therefore, when language of Section 12 is taken into consideration, then
it is evident that, its a matter of evidence as to whether abetment has
taken place or not and at this stage, we cannot show indulgence to put at
naught the criminal trial where evidence is required to be lead to
determine as to whether there was element of abetment or not and
therefore, we refuse to show indulgence.
16. In the case of Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport
Undertaking Vs. Laqshya Media (P) Ltd. (2010)1 SCC 620, Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed that "to ensure fairness in the activities of
the State and Public Authorities, their dealing should be above board.
Nothing should be done by the Public Authorities which gives an
impression of bias, favoritism and ordinarily these factors would be
absent if the matter is brought to public auction by inviting tenders".
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Urban Improvement
Trust, Bikaner Vs. Mohanlal (2010)1 SCC 512 noted that "it is a matter
of concern that such frivolous and unjust litigations by governments and
statutory authorities are on the increase. Statutory Authorities exist to
discharge statutory functions in public interest. They should be
responsible litigants. They cannot raise frivolous and unjust objections,
nor act in a callous and highhanded manner...... They are expected to
show remorse or regret when their officers act negligently or in an
overbearing manner. When glaring wrong acts by their officers are
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:57583
7 CRR-3605-2025
brought to their notice, for which there is no explanation or excuse, the
least that is expected is restitution/restoration to the extent possible with
appropriate compensation. Their harsh attitude in regard to genuine
grievances of the public and their indulgence in unwarranted litigation
requires to be corrected. Governments and statutory authorities should be
model or ideal litigants and should not put forth false, frivolous,
vexatious, technical (but unjust) contentions to obstruct the path of
justice".
18. In view of aforesaid, petition fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
AR
