[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Himanshu Makwana vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8902
1 CRR-3687-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3687 of 2025
HIMANSHU MAKWANA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Satanand Choubay - Advocate for the petitioner [P-1].
Shri Jai Gopal Chouksey appearing on behalf of Advocate General[r-
1].
Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent [OBJ].
Heard on : 06.01.2026
Delivered On: 06.04.2026
ORDER
This criminal revision is preferred under section 438 read with Section
441 of BNSS, 2023 challenging the order dated 25.06.2025 passed in ST
No.25/2025 by Additional Sessions Judge, Sanwer, District Indore whereby
the charges under Section 420 read with 120-B, 409 read with 120-B, 468
read with 120-B, and 120-B of IPC have been framed against the revision
petitioner and other co-accused persons in a case arising out of the Crime
No.78/2025 registered at Police Station Sanver, District Indore Dehat.
2. Facts in brief are that a Crime No.78/2025 was registered at Police
Station Sanver, Indore under section 420, 409 and 120-B of IPC against co-
accused muzaffar Hussain and Mohd. Hussain Mev and Sonam on the report
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8902
2 CRR-3687-2025
of one Sharukh Khan in which allegations were leveled that they got
registered the firm in the title of "Indian Scrap" with Registration
No.237BRPH1172N12F with GST Office, Mandsaur on 11.09.2020 and
solicited the to invest the amount. They initially returned the money to the
complainant and thereafter, solicited huge investment and misappropriated
he amount by purchasing the properties in their personal names and duped
the investors.
3. During investigation, it was discovered that for soliciting the
inverters for investment in the their scrap firm, they conspired with the
present revision petitioner/accused who was working as an accountant at the
godown of trader Sanjay Sachetiya and present revision petitioner/accused
adopting the modus operandi and taking the photographs of weigh slips of
scrap goods at his Redme Note5 Pro mobile and forwarded the co-accused so
that the investors could believe that the co-accused persons are really dealing
in scrap business and after completing the investigation, final report was
submitted against four accused persons including the present revision
petitioner.
4. Learned trial Court framed the charges and this revision petitioner
has been preferred on the ground that investigation in the present case has
been unfair, unjust and partial. Even if the allegations against the present
revision petitioner is accepted as it is than there is no iota of material against
the revision petitioner for which, at this stage, he should not be put for trial.
The learned trial Court has erred by brushing out an important fact that there
was no forgery and fabrication of any documents found in the possession of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8902
3 CRR-3687-2025
the present revision petitioner and from his mobile phone as alleged by the
prosecution. The charges framed against him are false and cooked upto.
There is no essential ingredients of offences under Section 420, 409, 468,
120-B and 201 of IPC are lacking and final report does not contained a
single evidence against him.
5. In support of his contention, counsel for the revision petitioner has
placed reliance over the judgment of Dilawar Babu Kurane vs. State of
Maharashtra; AIR 2002 SC 564, Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi vs. State of
Maharashtra; AIR 2008 SC 2991 and Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar
Samal and Another; 1979 SCR (2) 229.
6. Heard.
7. Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer.
8 . Before dealing with the rival contentions, it is appropriate to refer to
the scope of exercise of power under section 227 of the Cr.P.C or presently
section 250 of the BNSS, 2023. The Apex Court in P.Vijayan vs. State of
Kerala and another - (2010) 2 SCC 398, made an in-depth consideration
regarding the scope of power under section 227 Cr.P.C and held thus:
"10. Before considering the merits of
the claim of both the parties, it is useful to
refer to Section 227 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, which reads as under:
"227. Discharge. -- If, upon
consideration of the record of the case and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8902
4 CRR-3687-2025
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."
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. Further,
the words "not sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused" clearly
show that the Judge is not a mere post office
to frame the charge at the behest of the
prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial
mind to the facts of the case in order to
determine whether a case for trial has been
made out by the prosecution. In assessing this
fact, it is not necessary for the court to enter
into the pros and cons of the matter or into a
weighing and balancing of evidence and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8902
5 CRR-3687-2025
probabilities which is really the function of
the court, after the trial starts.
11. At the stage of Section 227, the
Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order
to find out whether or not there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused. In
other words, the sufficiency of ground would
take within its fold the nature of the evidence
recorded by the police or the documents
produced before the court which ex facie
disclose that there are suspicious
circumstances against the accused so as to
frame a charge against him."
09. In Sajjan Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation -(2010) 9
SCC 368,(2010) 9 SCC 368, the Apex Court has laid down certain
guiding principles for discharge as under:
"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 CrPC has the undoubted power
to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8902
6 CRR-3687-2025
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8902
7 CRR-3687-2025
can frame 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8902
8 CRR-3687-2025
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."
10. In the light of the above parameters, now, come to the facts of this
case. The statement of victim Salmaaan @ Firoz Khan recorded under
Section 180 of BNSS, 2023 on 16.05.2025 is to the effect that on query
regarding the business of scrap, Muzaffar took him to the present revision
petitioner and the present revision petitioner told Salmaan @ Firoz that
Muzaffar sell the scrap to their factory situated at Daloda and the present
revision petitioner showed the photographs of scarp and weight slips stored
in his mobile and he invested the money relying on the details provided by
present revision petitioner.
11. Apart from that, as per the seizure memo dated 10.03.2025, copies
of 18 weight slips have been recovered from the co-accused Muzaffar
Hussain. Accordingly, the above material collected during the investigation
satisfied the standard of prima facie case as required for framing of charges
against the revision petitioner. Factum that Redme Note5 Pro mobile could
not be recovered, does not entitled him for because the revision petitioner
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8902
9 CRR-3687-2025
himself destroyed the said mobile. The contentions of counsel for the
revision petitioner does not found support on the strength of Dilawar Babu
Kurane (supra), Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi (supra) and Prafulla Kumar
Samal (supra) also. In view of the aforesaid, the findings of learned trial
Court does not call for interference, hence, this revision petition does not
succeed and is hereby dismissed.
12. A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court concerned
for information.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
amit
