[Cites 32, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 April, 2026
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25889
1 CRR No.1130/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1130 of 2026
SANJAY JATAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE POLICE
STATION BERASIYA AND ANOTHER
...................................................................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Surdeep Khampariya, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Ritesh Sharma, Panel Lawyer for respondent-State.
...........................................................................................................................................................
Reserved on : 01.04.2026
Delivered on : 06.04.2026
...........................................................................................................................................................
ORDER
This criminal revision under Section 438/442 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short 'the BNSS')
has been preferred by the petitioner/accused challenging the
order dtd.28.01.2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Berasia, District Bhopal in Case No. S.T.37/2025, whereby
charges under Section 351(3) and 351(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25889
Sanhita, 2023 (in short 'the BNS') have been framed against the
petitioner.
2. With a view to understand the prosecution case and to see
the method and manner, in which the court below has exercised
its jurisdiction, entire impugned order dtd.28.01.2026, is quoted
as under:
"रा य वारा अपर लोक अ भयोजक ।
आरोपी मनोज एवं संजय स हत ी मलखान अ धव ता ।
करण आज आरोपी संजय क ओर से तुत आवेदन अंतगत धारा 250
भारतीय नाग रक सुर ा सं हता पर आदे श हेतु नयत है ।
उ त आवेदन पर उभयप के तक वण कये गये।
आरोपी संजय का सं ेप म उ त आवेदन यह है क करण म फ रयाद
वारा आरोपी संजय पर झूठा करण बनाकर जो आरोप लगाये गये है वह
नराधार है । संजय जाटव और मनोज रै कवार का करण म कृ य कह ं भी
कसी भी कार से समान न होकर असमान है तथा पूरे करण म संजय
जाटव वारा मनोज रै कवार का कह ं कसी कार से कोई साथ नह ं दया
गया है। संजय जाटव को केवल मनोज का दो त होना बताया गया है।
इसके अ त र त कसी भी कार से संजय जाटव वारा ऐसा कोई कृ य नह ं
कया गया है िजससे उसे करण म सह आरोपी बनाया जाय।
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25889
अपने आवेदन म यह भी य त कया है क दोन आरोपी पर अलग अलग
करण बनता है पर तु फ रयाद वारा पु लस के साथ मलकर दोन
अ भयु त को एक ह करण म समान प से फंसाया गया है जो क
नराधार है । उ त आधार पर संजय जाटव का आवेदन वीकार कर उसे
उ मो चत कर दोषमु त कये जाने क ाथना क गयी है ।
रा य क ओर से अपर लोक अ भयोजक के वारा अपने ल खत जबाव म
आवेदन के त य को अ वीकार करते हुये यह य त कया है क आरोपी
मनोज एवं संजय दोन करण म आरोपी है । आरोपी मनोज वारा पी डता के
साथ शाद का झांसा दे कर बार बार बला संग कया तथा सह आरोपी संजय
जाटव स पूण अपराध म सहभागी रहा है इसी लये आरोपी एवं पी डता के
बीच क स पूण बात क जानकार है तथा आरोपी संजय जाटव ने पी डता
को धमकाया है क य द उसने उसके साथ संबंध नह ं बनाये तो सभी गोपनीय
बात उसके घर वाल को बता दे गा। उ त आधार पर आवेदन नर त कये
जाने क ाथना क गयी है।
करण का अवलोकन कया गया।
अ भयोजन कहानी के अनुसार दनांक 04.07.2025 को अ भयो ी के वारा
इस आशय क रपोट लेख कराई गयी है क वह अ भयु त को बचपन से
जानती है और वह और मनोज कर ब एक साल से एक दस
ू रे को पसंद करते
थे और बात करते थे, शाद करना चाहते थे। अ भयु त मनोज छुपकर
अ भयो ी से रात म मलने आता था और एक बार अ भयो ी के साथ
बला कार कया और अ भयु त मनोज उसे व दशा घम
ु ाने ले जाता था वहां
होटे ल म लेजाकर कहता था क वह दोन शाद कर लगे और शाद का झांसा
दे कर अ भयो ी के साथ गलत काम करता था। आ खर बार फ रयाद /
अ भयो ी और मनोज के बीच व दशा होटल म शार रक संबंध बने थे,
उसके बाद, मनोज ने दनांक 27.06.2025 को दोपहर 01:30 बजे सेमरा रोड
शमशाबाद चौराहे पर मलने बुलाया और कहने लगा क उसक सगाई कह ं
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25889
और हो गयी है और वह उससे शाद नह ं कर सकता है और वहां से चला
गया इसी लये उसी दन अ भयो ी ने चह
ू ा मार दवाई पी ल तो उसके घर
वाले उसे बैर सया जनरल अ पताल लेकर आये जहां उसके बयान हुये थे
ले कन डर के कारण अ पताल म बयान म कुछ नह ं बताया था य क
मनोज के पास उसके अ ल ल फोट है िजसे वायरल करने क धमक दे ता था,
मनोज का दो त संजय जाटव भी उसे धमक दे ता था क वह उससे बात कर
और वह नह ं करे गी तो उसके और मनोज के बार म उसके घर बता दे गा और
र तेदार म बदनाम कर दे गा। अ भयो ी क उ त रपोट पर से
अ भयु तगण के व ध अपराध कमांक 345/2025 अंतगत धारा 69,
351(3), 3(5) बीएनएसएस का पंजीब ध कया गया।
करण अवलोकन से यह प ट है क आरोपी तक कम पर क उ त
आवेदन आरोपी संजय क ओर से अंतगत धारा 250 बीएनएसएस के तहत
तुत कया गया है। उ त धारा के प र े य म यायालय का यह कत य है
क वह आरोप क वरचना के समय अ भयोग प क सम त साम ी पर
वचार कर यह तय करना होता है क या यायालय के सम पेश साम ी
आरोप के लये युि तयु त आधार दे ती है या नह । यहां युि तयु त आधार से
ता पय दोष स ध के आधार से नह ं है बि क इसका ता पय अ भयु त के
वचारण के लये पया त आधार से है और यायालय को केवल इतना वचार
करना है क अ भलेख क स पूण सि यक साम ी सामा यतः वीकार कर ल
जावे तो या अ भयु त को अपराध से यिु तयु त प से जोडा जा सकता है
तथा आरोपी लगने क टे ज पर यायालय को सा य क बार क से समी ा
करना अपे त नह ं है । इसी तर पर यह सस
ु ंगत है क अ भयु त के
व ध कायवाह करने के लये पया त आधार है न क उसे दोष स ध करने
के लये पया त सा य है। करण के अवलोकन से यह प ट है क आरोपी
संजय के वारा फ रया दया को उससे बात करने के लये धमक दे ना तथा
बात न करने पर उसके व मनोज के बार म घर वाल को बता दे ने तथा
र तेदार म बदनामी कर दे ने क धमक दे ना तथा जान से मारने क धमक
दे ना आ े पत है ऐसी ि थ त म आरोपी संजय के व ध धारा 351(1) एवं
धारा 351(3) बीएनएसएस के तहत कायवाह कये जाने हे तु पया त आधार
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25889
थम टया प रल त हो रहे है ऐसी ि थ त म इस म पर तु त
आवेदन व ध संगत न होने से आरोपी संजय के वारा तुत आवेदन
अंतगत धारा 250 बीएनएसएस स यय नर त कया जाता है ।
करण आरोप तक हे तु थोडी दे र बाद पेश हो।
********
पुन च,
रा य क ओर से अपर लोक अ भयोजक उपि थत ।
आरोपीगण स हत ी योगेश शमा अ धव ता उपि थत ।
करण आरोप तक हे तु नयत है ।
करण म आरोप तक सुने गये। अ भलेख का अवलोकन कया गया।
रा य क ओर से अ भयोग प म ता वत अनुसार आरोप न मत करने का
नवेदन कया गया है
करण का अवलोकन कया गया।
करण के साथ संल न द तावेज के अवलोकन से आरोपी संजय जाटव के
व ध धारा 351(3) एवं 351(1) बी एन एस अ भयु त मनोज के व ध
धारा 69, 351(3) बी एन एस के अंतगत आरोप वर चत कए जाने के
आधार व यमान है ।
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25889
अतः आरोप वर चत कए जाकर आरोप प क व श टयां आरोपीगण को
पढकर सन
ु ाये व समझाये गये तो आरोपीगण ने अपराध करना अ वीकार
कया। आरोपीगण के अ भवाक अं कत कये गये।
आरोपीगण क ओर से अ भयोजन क ओर से तुत द तावेज क स यता
से इंकार कया ।
करण वचारण ो ाम तु त दनांक 06.02.2026 बाद पेश हो।"
********
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court to the
impugned order dtd.28.01.2026 submits that even on the basis of
material available on record i.e. FIR and statement of victim, no
prima facie case for framing charge under Section 351(3) of the
BNS is made out against the petitioner and the Court below has
wrongly framed the charges for the offences under Section
351(3) and 351(1) of the BNS. He also submits that even in
absence of allegations in the FIR as well as in the statement of
victim to the effect that the petitioner threatened the victim to
cause her death, Court below has framed the charge under
Section 351(3) BNS after dismissal of the application filed
under Section 250 BNSS. He also submits that in the impugned
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25889
order also nothing has been mentioned as to what material is
available against the petitioner for framing the charge under the
aforesaid section. On inter alia submissions he prays for setting
aside the impugned order and for his discharge.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State
supports the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the
criminal revision.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned order as well as available documents.
6. Even though the case diary is not available, but from the
challan documents made available by counsel for the petitioner
and from prosecution story as narrated by the Court itself in
the impugned order, it is clear that that no allegation is there in
the FIR about threatening allegedly given by the petitioner to the
victim to cause her death.
7. However, the impugned order is silent as to the document
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25889
on the basis of which the court has inferred the aforesaid
allegation of threatening, which is creating doubt about veracity
of the charge framed by the Court for the offence under Section
351(3) of the BNS, which can be removed by the Court below
itself.
8. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order which is non-
speaking also, becomes unsustainable.
9. It is pertinent to mention here that by filing an application
under Section 250 of the BNSS, the petitioner specifically
mentioned that even prima facie, no case is made out against the
petitioner for framing charges under the aforesaid sections. The
application has been dismissed by the impugned order with the
observations that there are sufficient grounds for framing
charges against the petitioner for the offences under Section
351(1) and 351(3) of the BNS, however that ground/material has
not been disclosed/mentioned in the impugned order.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25889
10. With a view to understand the ingredients of Sections 250
of the BNSS (S. 227 in CrPC) and 251 of the BNSS (S. 228 in
CrPC), the same are reproduced as under:
S. 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C., 1973:
"227. Discharge.-- If, upon consideration of the record of the case
and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the
submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the
Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his
reasons for so doing.
228. Framing of charge.-- (1) If, after such consideration and hearing
as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming
that the accused has committed an offence which--
(a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a
charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, [or any other Judicial Magistrate of the
first class and direct the accused to appear before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, or, as the case may be, the Judicial Magistrate of the first
class, on such date as he deems fit, and thereupon such Magistrate]
shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of
warrant-cases instituted on a police report;
(b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a
charge against the accused.
(2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub-section
(1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused and the
accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged
or claims to be tried."
S. 250 and 251 of the BNSS, 2023:
"250. Discharge.-- (1) The accused may prefer an application for
discharge within a period of sixty days from the date of commitment of
the case under section 232.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25889
(2) If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents
submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused
and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge
the accused and record his reasons for so doing.
251. Framing of charge.-- (1) If, after such consideration and hearing
as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming
that the accused has committed an offence which-
(a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may,
frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the
case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or any other
Judicial Magistrate of the first class and direct the accused to
appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Judicial
Magistrate of the first class, on such date as he deems fit, and
thereupon such Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance
with the procedure for the trial of warrant-cases instituted on a
police report;
(b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing
a charge against the accused within a period of sixty days from
the date of first hearing on charge.
(2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub-section
(1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused present
either physically or through audio-video electronic means and the
accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged
or claims to be tried."
11. Reading of the aforesaid sections, makes it clear that there
is no substantial difference in the old and new sections.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Century
Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd & Ors. vs. The State of
Maharashtra, (1972) 3 SCC 282, observed as under:
"17. Coming now to the facts of this case, in our view, the question
principally depends on the scope and effect of the notification, dated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25889
September 22, 1949, the circular, dated November 2, 1964 and the
Deviation Order, dated June 25, 1965. If, on this material, the Court
comes to the conclusion that there is no ground for presuming that the
accused has committed an offence, then it can appropriately consider
the charge to be groundless and discharge the accused. The argument
that the Court at the stage of framing the charges has not to apply its
judicial mind for considering whether or not there is a ground for
presuming the commission of the offence by the accused is not
supportable either on the plain language of the section or on its judicial
interpretation or on any other recognised principle of law. The order
framing the charges does substantially affect the person's liberty
and it is not possible to countenance the view that the Court must
automatically frame the charge merely because the prosecuting
authorities, by relying on the documents referred to in Section 173,
consider it proper to institute the case. The responsibility of
framing the charges is that of the Court and it has to judicially
consider the question of doing so. Without fully adverting to the
material on the record it must not blindly adopt the decision of the
prosecution."
13. The Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Dilawar Balu
Kurane vs State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135, held as
under:
"12. Now the next question is whether a prima facie case has been
made out against the appellant. In exercising powers under Section 227
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the settled position of law is that
the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges
under the said section has the undoubted power to sift and weigh
the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not
a prima facie case against the accused has been made out; where
the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion
against the accused which has not been properly explained the
court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding
with the trial; by and large 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 justified to discharge the accused, and in exercising
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25889
jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the
Judge cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the
prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case,
the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the
court but should not make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of
the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial [see
Union of India versus Prafulla Kumar Samal & Another (1979) 3 SCC
4]."
14. Again a three Judge bench of Hon'ble Apex Court, in the
case of Ghulam Hassan Beigh vs. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey
and others, (2022) 12 SCC 657, while considering the
provisions relating to framing of charge, observed as under:
"23. In Sajjan Kumar vs. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri)
1371, this Court had an occasion to consider the scope of Sections 227
and 228 Cr.P.C. The principles which emerged therefrom have been
taken note of in Para 21 as under: (SCC pp. 376-377)
"21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections
227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge:
(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges
under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has the undoubted power to sift and weigh
the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a
prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to
determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case.
(ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave
suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained,
the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding
with the trial.
(iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the
prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the
total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the
court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be
a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the
evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an
opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25889
the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be
proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the
offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the
material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the
court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and
must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was
possible.
(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to
evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out
if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the
existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For
this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at
that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth
even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the
case.
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion
only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be
empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see
whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal."
24. to 26. *****
27.Thus from the aforesaid, it is evident that the trial court is
enjoined with the duty to apply its mind at the time of framing of
charge and should not act as a mere post office. The endorsement
on the charge sheet presented by the police as it is without
applying its mind and without recording brief reasons in support
of its opinion is not countenanced by law. However, the material
which is required to be evaluated by the Court at the time of framing
charge should be the material which is produced and relied upon by the
prosecution. The sifting of such material is not to be so meticulous as
would render the exercise a mini trial to find out the guilt or otherwise
of the accused. All that is required at this stage is that the Court must
be satisfied that the evidence collected by the prosecution is sufficient
to presume that the accused has committed an offence. Even a strong
suspicion would suffice. Undoubtedly, apart from the material that is
placed before the Court by the prosecution in the shape of final report
in terms of Section 173 of Cr.P.C. the Court may also rely upon any
other evidence or material which is of sterling quality and has direct
bearing on the charge laid before it by the prosecution. [See: Bhawna
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25889
Bai vs. Ghanshyam, (2020) 2 SCC 217]."
15. A Coordinate bench of this court also, in the case of
Rajneesh Kumar Soni vs. State of M.P., 2019 CrLJ 3515, held
as under:
"10. It appears from the record that learned Special Judge without
considering the documents and evidence produced by the Police
along with the closure report and the points as raised by the
learned counsel of the appellants before this Court, framed
charges against the applicant. So without going into the merits of the
case the revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 03/09/2013
passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Satna,
District Satana in Special Case No. 61/2012, whereby learned Special
Judge framed charge against applicant/accused Rajnish Kumar Soni
alias Mantu for the offences punishable under Sections 374, 294, 506
(Part II) of the IPC and Section 3(1)(vi) of the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is set aside
and learned trial court is directed to again pass a reasoned order
regarding framing of charges against applicant, after considering
the entire record and after hearing both the parties."
16. Another coordinate bench of this court in the case of
Vinod Bohare vs State of M.P., (2015) 2 MPLJ (Cri) 358=2015
SCC OnLine MP 3803, also held as under:
"10. It is pertinent to mention here that on the same facts of the case,
charges under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC were framed by the trial
Court vide order dated 5.3.2009 which was challenged in Criminal
Revision No. 227/09 and by order dated 17.3.2010 this Court by
allowing the criminal revision and setting aside the impugned
order directed the learned Court below to pass a reasoned order
and thereafter frame the charge, if required. But in spite of the
direction of the Court, no reasoned order was passed by the trial
Court and again charges under sections 420 and 406 of IPC were
framed against the petitioner. That order was again challenged in
Criminal Revision No.882/11 and by order dated 17.11.11 by allowing
the criminal revision and setting aside the impugned order dated
12.9.11, this Court again directed to comply with order dated
17.3.2010 passed in Criminal Revision No.227/09.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25889
11. By the impugned order dated 02.02.2012, although, an
elaborate order has been passed framing charge under Section 406
of IPC, but learned trial Court did not consider the ingredients of
sections 405 and 406 of IPC."
17. A coordinate bench of Rajasthan High court in the case of
Kamla Shankar Nagda vs State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp, 2026
Supreme (Raj) 159=2026:RJ-JD:7893, held as under:
"25. It is no doubt correct that at the stage of framing of charge, the
Court is not expected to write a detailed or elaborate order as would be
warranted at the stage of discharge or final adjudication. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Kanti Bhadra Shah & Anr. v. State of West Bengal
(2000) 1 SCC 722 has clarified that framing of charge does not require
a reasoned order akin to a judgment. However, the said principle cannot
be misconstrued to legitimise a mechanical or non-speaking exercise,
devoid of even minimal articulation of judicial satisfaction. Brevity is
permissible; opacity is not.
26. The distinction between a brief order and a mechanical order is well
recognised in criminal jurisprudence. Even while framing charges, the
Court must indicate, albeit succinctly, that it has adverted to the
material on record and that such material, if taken at face value,
discloses the existence of the essential ingredients of the offence alleged
for which charges has to be framed. A mere reproduction of statutory
sections or a bare assertion that an offence is "prima facie made out"
does not fulfil this requirement.
27. This requirement assumes greater significance in prosecutions under
the Prevention of Corruption Act post the 2018 amendment. The
legislative transformation of Section 7 has introduced the element of
"improper or dishonest performance of public duty" as a sine qua non.
Therefore, even at the threshold stage, the Court is expected to advert,
howsoever briefly to the existence of material indicating demand or
acceptance of undue advantage in connection with such improper or
dishonest performance. In the absence of even a skeletal reference to
such material, the order betrays a presumption rather than a judicial
satisfaction.
28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar
Samal & Anr., AIR 1979 SC 366, has categorically held that the Judge
cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution.
The Court must consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25889
effect of the evidence and documents produced, and any basic
infirmities apparent on the face of the record. The impugned order,
however, reflects no such exercise and instead appears to have
proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the filing of a charge-sheet
ipso facto warrants framing of charge.
29. Further, the expression "arguments on charge heard" recorded in the
order sheet, without even a fleeting reference to the nature of such
arguments or the reasons for their rejection, renders the exercise under
Sections 250 and 251 of the BNSS illusory. Such recording,
unaccompanied by any demonstrable consideration, amounts to an
empty formality, which has been consistently deprecated by
constitutional courts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kranti Associates
Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496 has held that
"rubber-stamp reasons" or pretence of reasoning cannot be equated with
a valid judicial decision-making process.
30. This Court, in H.G. Grover v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal
Revision Petition No. 1356/2022), has reiterated that although
meticulous appreciation of evidence is not required at the stage of
framing of charge, the Trial Court must nonetheless satisfy itself that
the material on record discloses the essential ingredients of the offence
and must reflect such satisfaction in the order. The absence of such
reflection renders the order vulnerable to judicial correction."
18. Another coordinate bench of Rajasthan High Court also, in
the case of Pawan Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan, 2025 Supreme
(Online) (RAJ) 1907= 2026:RJ-JP:3049, held as under:
"10. On joint reading the Sections 249 and 251 of the B.N.S.S., this
Court is of the firm opinion that the learned trial Court is supposed
to make due and thoughtful consideration to the submissions made
by the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the counsel appearing
for the accused and form its opinion as regards the framing of
charge and such opinion should also have been discussed in the
order passed by the learned trial Judge for framing of charge,
along with the considerations made, so as to form such opinion.
11. In the present case, this Court finds that the trial Judge has framed
the charge for offence under Section 306 IPC against the petitioner
without thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by both
the parties and without disclosing its opinion that what was that
material which prima facie made out the offence against the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25889
accused-petitioner. Trial Judge is supposed to pass a reasoned
order."
19. A coordinate bench of Delhi High court in the case of
Ashok Bhadauria vs. State, 2016 Supreme (Del) 4389=
CRL.REV.P. 274/2007 (Order dated 15.12.2016), held as
under:
"12. It is a settled law that the Court at the time of framing the charge
is required to discuss the material on the record to show its application
of mind to reach to the conclusion of sufficiency of material to frame
the charge. The Court may not write the lengthy order describing
the entire material mentioned in the charge sheet but there must
be something on the face of the order from where it could be
gauged that there is application of mind but the order is contrary
to the above mentioned ratio of law.
13. This Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Judge
need to exercise again jurisdiction to pass the fresh reasoned order."
20. A coordinate bench of Allahabad High Court also in the
case of Smt. Mewati Devi and Another vs. State of U.P. and
Another, 2024 SCC OnLine All 1050=2024 Supreme (All)
572, held as under:
"18. From the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered view the
death of the deceased took place after more than seven years of her
marriage with the accused Ram Suresh and the trial court has rightly
dropped the charge under Section 304-B and directed for framing
charge under Section 302 IPC and in the impugned, the trial court has
given reasons for framing charge under Section 498-A against the
accused. Since the trial court has not prima facie considered the
statement of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the
contents of postmortem report regarding death of the deceased
and nature of injuries of the deceased given in the postmortem
report, the trial court has not given sufficient reason for framing
charge under Section 302 IPC.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25889
19. From the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the
criminal revision should be partially allowed. The criminal revision is
partially allowed and the portion of the impugned order directing the
framing of charge under Section 302 IPC is set aside. The trial court
in light of the above discussion shall pass reasoned order observing
that apart from Section 498-A, the charge against the accused
should be framed under Section 306 IPC or 302 IPC.
20. Since much time has passed from the date of filing of the charge-
sheet, the trial shall pass an order for framing of charges within a
period of two months in accordance with law from the date of the
production of a certified copy of this order."
21. A coordinate Bench of Patna High Court also in the case
of Param Pal Singh Gandhi son of Shri Kirpal Singh Gandhi vs.
The State of Bihar, 2016 SCC OnLine Pat. 10209, held as
under:
"25. In the light of what has been discussed above, when we revert to
the facts of the present case, it transpires that the learned Magistrate,
while assigning the reasons for framing of charges, has merely
observed to the effect that the materials collected include various
letters and report from one or the other authority and that these
materials create a reasonable doubt against the accused- petitioner as
regards his involvement in the alleged offences. It is on this basis that
the impugned order, deciding to frame charges, has been passed. There
is, however, not a word used by the learned Magistrate to show as to
why the contentions, raised on behalf of the accused-petitioner, were
not acceptable in fact or tenable in law. The order, deciding to frame
a charge, must be a speaking order and such speaking order shall
not only record the submissions made by the prosecution as well as
the defence, but also the reasons as to why the submissions, which
may have been made by the accused or the prosecution, cannot be
accepted. On this aspect, the impugned order is wholly silent.
26. I, therefore, consciously, avoid from expressing any opinion on the
correctness or veracity of the submissions made on behalf of the
parties concerned either before this Court or before the learned trial
Court. The learned trial Court shall, in the facts and attending
circumstances of the present case (which has been investigated almost
after a quarter of century), assign reasons as to why the submissions,
made on behalf of the accused-petitioner, cannot be accepted at all and,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25889
thereafter, the learned trial Court, if it finds that there are grounds to
proceed with the case, may frame charge(s). In the event charges are
framed, the case shall be expeditiously dealt with in accordance with
law keeping in view the fact that a delayed trial amounts to denial of
fair trial."
22. Apparently, aforesaid binding settled legal position, has
not been followed by the Court below while passing the
impugned order.
23. However, from the aforesaid discussion/settled legal
position it is evident that at the stage of framing of charge, the
trial court is not required to pass a detailed or elaborate order as
is expected at the stage of final adjudication. At the same time,
the order cannot be passed in a mechanical manner. The court is
required to apply its judicial mind to the material placed on
record, including the charge-sheet and the documents produced
by the prosecution, and to sift the same to a limited extent for
the purpose of ascertaining whether a prima facie case is made
out against the accused. The trial court is not obliged to assign
detailed reasons while framing charges; however, the order must
reflect that the court has formed its opinion on the basis of the
material available on record. Such material, forming the basis of
the satisfaction of the court, ought to be indicated in the order
itself so as to demonstrate that the court has duly considered the
record and has arrived at the conclusion that there are sufficient
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25889
grounds to proceed against the accused and make him stand
trial.
24. It is also apt to mention here that in revisional jurisdiction,
the Court is empowered to call for and examine the records of
any proceeding for the limited purpose of satisfying itself as to
the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence or
order, and the regularity of the proceedings of the subordinate
court. However, in my considered opinion this exercise of
jurisdiction necessarily implies the existence of findings
recorded by the court below. Where the subordinate court has
failed to record necessary findings or has omitted to apply its
judicial mind upon material issues, the revisional court cannot
undertake an independent appreciation of evidence or substitute
its own conclusions in the absence of such findings. In such
circumstances, the proper course for the revisional court is to
remand the matter back to the trial court for recording findings,
as in the absence of such findings the revisional court cannot
effectively exercise its jurisdiction. This is because the
revisional jurisdiction is supervisory in nature and is not
intended to convert itself into a court of first instance.
25. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position about
framing of charge and in absence of any finding indicating
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25889
recording of satisfaction/application of mind while framing the
charge, this court has no option but to set aside the impugned
order framing the charge and to remand the same to the court
below for fresh consideration in the light of aforesaid settled
legal position.
26. Resultantly, the criminal revision succeeds and is allowed
and by setting aside the impugned order, matter is remanded to
the Court below for passing order afresh in the light of aforesaid
settled legal position, without being influenced by this order.
27. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.
28. Principal Registrar (J) is directed to place copy of this
order before Hon'ble the Chief Justice seeking approval for
circulation among all the judicial officers through the respective
Principal District and Sessions Judge of each District across the
State of Madhya Pradesh to comply with the directions given in
the order, so as to avoid such/same mistakes in future.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
KPS
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25889
