Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rambabu Sharma vs Vasudev Tyagi on 10 October, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25566
1 CRR-2846-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 10th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2846 of 2025
RAMBABU SHARMA
Versus
VASUDEV TYAGI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Neelam Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Naval Gupta Sr.Advocate with Shri Anurag Gupta - advocate for
the respondents.
ORDER
The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision under Section 438
and 442 of BNSS/397/401 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by order dated
11.06.2025 passed by V Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind District Bhind in
Criminal Revision No.42/2025 whereby the order passed by Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Lahar 28.03.2025 has been quashed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner has filed an application
under Section 164 and 165 of BNSS (Section 145 and 146 of Cr.P.C) before
the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Lahar. After hearing both the parties,
learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order dated 28.03.2025 in
favour of the petitioner. The same has been challenged by the respondent
before V ASJ, Bhind by filing Cr.Revision and by the impugned order, the
revisional court has set-aside the order passed by the SDM and remanded the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25566
2 CRR-2846-2025
matter back to the SDM Lahar for adjudication afresh after providing
sufficient opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Being aggrieved by the
aforesaid, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it is her first
criminal revision. She did not file any criminal revision before, therefore, this
criminal revision is maintainable. Learned counsel places reliance upon the
judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of R.H.Bhutani Vs. Man.J. Desai
and Others reported in 1970 MPLJ 137(SC) and Jhummamal Vs. State of
M.P. & Ors reported in 1999 MPLJ 166 (SC) and by High Court of UP in
WP No.9505 of 2013 (Irfan Ali Vs. State of UP and four others).
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer
and prayed for its rejection by submitting that there is no provisions in the
Cr.P.C or BNSS empowering the petitioner to file a criminal revision agaisnt
the order passed by the revisional court. Therefore, this revision is not
maintainable.
5. From perusal of record, it appears that V Additional Sessions Judge,
Bhind has decided the matter by impugned order dated 11.06.2025 in
Criminal Revision No.42/2025 and against the order passed by Revisional
Court, this second criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner. There is
no specific provision in Cr.P.C. which empowered the petitioner to file the
second revision. In the case of Dilip Shaw vs. Swarup Daw reported in 1995
CrLJ 2724, the Calcutta High Court has held that under the provisions of
Code of Criminal Procedure, second revision is not maintainable. Relying
upon the aforesaid judgment, this second criminal revision is not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25566
3 CRR-2846-2025
maintainable.
6. Although the petitioner has submitted certain citations in support
of her contention but all these citations are related to the provisions of
Article 227 of the Constitution of India and in all those cases, no criminal
revision has been filed against the order passed by the revisional court.
Therefore, these citations are not applicable to the present case.
7. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed as not maintainable .
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Rks
