Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravi Singh Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 October, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25733
1 WA-2971-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA YADAV
ON THE 13th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 2971 of 2025
RAVI SINGH TOMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Awadhesh Singh Bhadoriya - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Vivek Khedkar - Additional Advocate General/Senior Advocate with Shri
Ravindra Dixit - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anand Pathak
1. The present writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh
Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is
preferred by the appellant, taking exception to the order dated 30-07-2025
passed in writ petition No.17611/2025 as well as order dated 26-09-2025
passed in the said writ petition on an application seeking recall of the order
dated 30-07-2025.
2. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that he
preferred a writ petition against the respondents/State seeking certain relief
for institution of criminal proceedings against certain erring persons. On the
fateful day i.e. 02-07-2025 when matter was listed for hearing, he could not
cause his appearance due to the reason mentioned in the application and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25733
2 WA-2971-2025
therefore, learned Writ Court proceeded with hearing of counsel for the
respondents/State and matter was reserved for orders.
3. Judgment was pronounced on 30-07-2025 and writ petition was
dismissed. Petitioner preferred an application vide I.A.No.9570/2025 seeking
correction/recall of the order dated 30-07-2025, but the said application was
dismissed vide order dated 26-09-2025 on the ground that there is no
provision for review of the order passed under criminal jurisdiction. Since
factual details had trappings of criminal case and question of registration of
FIR etc. was involved, therefore, no such order of review/recall could have
been passed. Against the said order, appellant is before this Court.
4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that learned
Writ Court erred in passing the order because the application for recall could
have been entertained as it is not review application. Appellant on the fateful
day could not appear because of ignorance and inadvertence. However, recall
application was maintainable.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents/State supported the impugned
order.
6. Heard the rival contention.
7. In the present case, appellant as petitioner preferred writ petition
seeking following reliefs:
"7(I).यह क, माननीय सव च यायालय ारा अपने याय
ांत लिलता कुमार बनाम उ र दे श रा य म ितपा दत कया है क
य द थाने का भार साधक अिधकार सं ेय अपराध म एफ.आई.आर.
पंजीब नह ं करता है तो उसके व वभागीय एवं द डा मक
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25733
3 WA-2971-2025
कायवाह क जायेगी, उ याय ांत के प र े य म याथ मांक
01 व 02 को आदे िशत कया जावे क उ मामले मं एफ.आई.आर दज न
करने वाले भारसाधक अिधकार के व विध अनुसार कायवाह क
जावे।
7(II) यह क, व ान J.M.F.C यायालय िभ ड ारा करण
211/2023 UNCR- (र व िसंह तोमर बनाम म. .शासन) म पा रत
आदे श दनांक 12.08.2024 एवं व ान पंचम अपर स यायायल िभ ड
ारा Cr.R.73/2024 र व िसंह तोमर बनाम म. . शासन मं पा रत आदे श
दनांक 07.05.2025 को िनर त करते हुए उ मामले म द. .स. क
धारा 156 (3) के तहत एफ.आई.आर. पंजीब कये जाने के संबंध म
आदे श पा रत कया जावे।
7(III) यह क, याय हत म जो उिचत हो आदे श व िनदश पा रत
कया जावे।"
8. On 02-07-2025 counsel for the petitioner did not appear, resulting
into passing the order dated 30-07-2025. Said order indicates that nobody
appeared on behalf of petitioner. Later on, when recall application was
preferred, then it got dismissed on the ground that review is not
maintainable.
9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vishnu Agarwal Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 14 SCC 813 discussed this issue and came to the
conclusion on the basis of earlier judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Asit Kumar Kar Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 703
that there is distinction between review petition and recall petition. In a case
where nobody appeared or opportunity of hearing was not provided to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25733
4 WA-2971-2025
party, then that party can file an application for recall of the order and the
said application is maintainable.
10. In view of the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case
of Vishnu Agarwal (supra) and Asit Kumar Kar (supra), it appears that the
orders dated 30-07-2025 and 26-09-2025 would have to go into oblivion,
therefore, they are set aside. Writ petition is restored to file. Parties may
appear before learned Writ Court and they are at liberty to advance
arguments as per law.
11. Writ appeal stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.
(ANAND PATHAK) (PUSHPENDRA YADAV)
JUDGE JUDGE
Anil*
