Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Chaurasia vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 November, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58684
1 CRR-5294-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 18th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5294 of 2024
RAJESH CHAURASIA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Mayank Prajapati - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Amit Sharma - Govt. Advocate for respondent No. 1.
Shri Rakesh Kesarwani - Advocate for respondent No. 2.
Shri P.S. Tomar - Advocate for Intervenor.
ORDER
This Revision is directed against the order dated 27.07.2024 by which
application under Section 91 Cr.P.C was rejected by learned VIII Additional
Sessions Judge, Sessions Judge, District Sagar against the rejection order.
The complainant file Revision before this Court. Vide order dated
15.01.2025, Hon'ble Coordinate Bench dismissed the Revision of the
complainant and maintained the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge.
Against this order an S.L.P. 10557/2025 by Rajesh Chaurasiya was filed.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 25th July, 2025 disposed of the
S.L.P observing thus:
"1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The subject matter in the instant appeal arose for consideration
before the trial Judge, namely, VIII Additional Sessions Judge,
District Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, in S.T. No.212/2019 on account
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58684
2 CRR-5294-2024
of the filing of an application by the appellant, apprehending that
the digital record produced in Court has been
corrupted. Accordingly, he sought a direction to the police
to produce the original record. That application was dismissed by
the Trial Court. The Revision Petition has been dismissed by the
High Court vide impugned order, without adverting to the question
whether such digital record has been corrupted and/or is lying
intact as a part of the judicial record. The High Court
rather proceeded to dismiss the revision petition on the premise
that the appellant-complainant has no locus standi to move such an
application.
4. On a bare perusal of Section 91 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (in short, the "Cr.P.C."), we find that the Court or
any officer in-charge of a police station can summon to produce
the document or any other material that may be relevant for the
purpose of adjudication of the case. The suo motu power vested
in the Court is wide enough that once the complainant or any other
person has drawn attention of the Court that there is a likelihood
of corrupting the digital record and/or destruction thereof, which,
in the instant case, appears to be the best prosecution evidence, the
High Court ought not to have gone into the question of
maintainability or locus. The appropriate recourse would have
been to look into the allegations and find out whether the
digital record is still intact and/or is there any truth in
the apprehension expressed by the appellant.
5. Since this question has not been gone into by the High Court,
we set aside the impugned order and remit the case to the High
Court with a request to decide the same afresh, keeping in view
the scope and object of Section 91 of Cr.P.C.
6. Since the accused is in custody for a long period, we request
the High Court to decide the revision petition expeditiously.
7. It goes without saying that the Trial Court shall not pronounce
the judgment till the revision petition is decided by the High Court
on merits 8. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of."
Today this Court has heard both the parties.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 Shri Kesawani submits that he
has no objection if the Revision is allowed.
Looking to the earlier order dated 15th January, 2025 and order of
Hon'ble Supreme Court as mentioned above, this Court is inclined to allow
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58684
3 CRR-5294-2024
the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C which was rejected by the trial Court
and it is directed that learned Trial Court to ensure that the physical as well
as digital record is safe and intact and if it is found that due to any reason
there is corruption of record either physical or digital then the Court to take
steps for repair/correction of the record after verifying its authenticity.
Needless to say since order dated 15.01.2025 was set aside by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court as mentioned above, the applicant is entitled for
refund of the cost as imposed vide order dated 15.01.2025.
Accordingly the Revision stands disposed of. The Trial Court shall
proceed further with the trial as per law expeditiously.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
VKT
