Ravi Kumar Potdar vs A.K.Dixit on 10 April, 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 9880
1 CRR. No. 8/2015 and 3 others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 10th OF APRIL, 2026
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 8 of 2015
RAVI KUMAR POTDAR
Versus
A.K.DIXIT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ravi Kumar Potdar - Petitioner (self) present in person.
Shri Prasanna J. Mehta - Advocate for the respondent No6.
Shri Bharat Yadav - Advocate for the respondent

WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 477 of 2015
RAVI KUMAR POTDAR
Versus
JAY SAMTANI AND OTHERS

Appearance:
Shri Ravi Kumar Potdar - Petitioner (self) present in person.
Shri Bharat Yadav - Advocate for the respondents.

WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 6 of 2015
RAVI KUMAR POTDAR
Versus
VIJAY KANOJIYA AND OTHERS

Appearance:
Shri Ravi Kumar Potdar - Petitioner (self) present in person.
Shri Bharat Yadav - Advocate for the respondents.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 10-04-2026
20:30:25
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 9880
2 CRR. No. 8/2015 and 3 others

WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1247 of 2016
RAVI KUMAR POTDAR
Versus
VIJAY KANOJIYA AND OTHERS

Appearance:
Shri Ravi Kumar Potdar - Petitioner (self) present in person.
Shri Yogesh Kumar Gupta - Advocate for the respondent No.3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All the criminal revisions, except CRR No. 477 of 2015 heard on
13.02.2026, were heard on 28.01.2026.

Today, on 10.04.2026, all the criminal revisions are being
pronounced.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER

In all the criminal revisions the revision petitioner is common and the question of law to be determined is also common, therefore, all the revision petitions are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The common question raised regarding the maintainability of the criminal revisions filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 directly before the High Court is being decided. The question of maintainability is being reproduced below:-

"Whether criminal revision filed under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 is directly maintainable before this High Court or whether revision petitioner/complainant is required to approach before the Sessions Court having jurisdiction under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C., 1973?

Heard both the parties.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 9880

CRR NO.477 of 2015

3. This revision petition arises out of order dated 16.04.2015 by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore whereby on a complaint filed under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 for taking cognizance under Section 409/34, 420, 120-B, 467/34, 468/34, 471, 202/34, 212/34 and 119/34 of the IPC against five accused persons/respondents. The complaint has been dismissed under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C., 1973.

CRR NO.6 of 2015

4. This criminal revision arises out of order dated 09.10.2014 by JMFC, Indore whereby on a complaint filed under Section 409, 420, 120-B, 467, 468, 471, 202, 212 of the IPC against the respondents/6 accused persons, cognizance have been taken only under Section 409 of the IPC against the respondent No.1, 2 and 3 but cognizance have not been taken under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC and complaint has been dismissed against the respondent No.4 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 119, 120-B of the IPC and respondent No.5 and 6 under Section 119 of the IPC.

CRR NO.8 of 2015

5. This revision petition arises out of order dated 29.11.2014 by JMFC, Indore whereby complaint filed under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 for taking cognizance under Section 409, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 119 of the IPC against the respondent, cognizance has taken only against respondent No.6 under Section 409 of the IPC

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 9880

and no cognizance have been taken against the respondent No.6 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC and complaint against the respondent No.1 to 5 have been dismissed. Vide order dated 20.04.2016, the revision petitioner does not wish to prosecute the case against the respondent No.1 and 5 and vide order dated 06.04.2016, the name of respondent No.3 was deleted as it was intimated that he died.

CRR NO.1247 of 2016

6. This revision petition arises out of order dated 08.04.2016 in ST No.989/2015 by 14th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Indore whereby charge under Section 409 of the IPC alternatively under Section 409/34 of the IPC have been framed against the respondent but charges under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120- B of the IPC have not been framed in a case arise out of complaint filed by the revision petitioner under Sections 409, 420, 120-B, 467, 471, 202, 212, 119 of the IPC.

Firstly, this Court is dealing with the objections raised by the respondents in CRR No.1247/2016.

8. In this revision petition, the impugned order has been passed by the 14th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Indore, therefore, the objections have no substance. The revision against the order of Additional Sessions Judge will lie to the High Court only, accordingly, CRR No.1247/2016 is maintainable.

Now this Court is considering the CRR Nos.6/2015, 8/2015 and 477/2015 in which the impugned orders have been passed by the Court of Magistrates.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 9880

9. The respondents have raised the question of maintainability by referring to Ravi Kumar Potdar vs. M.B. Ojha and Ors., order dated 08.04.2024 in CRR No.274/2015 by the High Court of M.P. Bench at Indore and reported as 2024 Latest Caselaw 9536 MP.

10. On the other hand, revision petitioner in person have opposed the objections by referring to Isaac Jaise vs. Jasmit Singh Saluja and Another reported in 2002 SCC OnLine MP 572, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Khizar Mohammad reported in 1996 SCC OnLine MP 76, Central Bureau of Investigation vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2007 S.C. 2522, S. Sathyanarayana vs. State reported in 2003 SCC OnLine Kar 76, Mohan Lal and Ors. Vs. Prem Chand and Ors reported in 1980 SCC OnLine HP 36, Kesavan Sivan Pillai vs. Sreedharan Rajamohan and Ors. Reported in 1978 SCC OnLine Ker 18, Madhavlal vs. Chandra - Shekhar reported in 1975 SCC OnLine Bom 96, Praban Kumar Mitra vs. State of West Bengal reported in 1959 Supp (1) SCR 63 and Ms. Cerena D'souza vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2002 Cr.L.J.4196.

11. The above discussions of law in referred case is that the Sessions Court and High Court have concurrent jurisdiction regarding the criminal revision. The maintainability of the proceedings is one thing while its entertainability is another thing. When the proceeding is not maintainable by two different courts one being inferior or subordinate to the other, then it is certainly a question of propriety, particularly for the superior court, as to

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 9880

whether it should entertain such a proceedings which could have been filed in the lower court. It is material to note that the revision is not a statutory right of litigant but it is a matter of discretion of the Court having revisional jurisdiction.

12. In these cases, this Court allows the objection of respondents regarding entertainability of the CRR Nos.6/2015, 8/2015 and 477/2015 before this Court directly for two reasons. Firstly, no special and exceptional reasons have been assigned for filing the revision petitions directly in this Court. Secondly, in the similar set of facts where revision petitioner itself have filed the revision petition and Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ravi Kumar Potdar (supra) considered all the grounds which are raised here and considering the rights of the accused persons, the objections were entertained. Relevant paragraphs of Ravi Kumar (Supra) are reproduced as below:-

6. So far as law laid down in the cases relied upon by the applicant, there is no dispute to the proportion of the law. The revisional jurisdiction conferred under the aforesaid provisions is a concurrent jurisdiction and the option is given to the aggrieved person. However, in those cases the right of the accused person has not been considered.

7. In the case of Manharibhai (supra), the Court considered the right of the accused persons in para-48. It is apt to reproduce para 48 of the judgment.

48. In case where the complaint has been dismissed by the Magistrate under section 203 of the Code either at the stage of section 200 itself or on completion of inquiry by the Magistrate under section 202 or on receipt of the report from the police or from any person to whom the direction was issued by the magistrate to investigate into the allegations in the complaint, the effect of such dismissal or termination of complaint proceedings. On a plain reading of subsection (2) of Section

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 9880

401, it cannot be said that the person against whom the allegations of having committed the offence have been made in the complaint and the complaint has been dismissed by the Magistrate under section 203, has no right to he heard because no process has been issued. The dismissal of complaint by the Magistrate under section 203- although it is at preliminary stage- nevertheless result in termination of proceedings in a complaint against the persons who are alleged to have committed the crime. Once a challenge is laid to such order at the instance of the complainant in a revision petition before the High Court or the Sessions Judge, by virtue of section 401(2) Cr.P.C., the suspects get the right of hearing before the Revisional Court although such order was passed without their participation. The right given to "accused" or 'the other person' under section 401(2) of being heard before the Revisional Court to defend an order which operates in his favour should not be confused with the proceedings before a Magistrate under sections 200, 202, 203 and 204. In the revision petition before the High Court or the Sessions Judge at the instance of the complainant challenging the order of dismissal of complaint, one of the things that could happen is reversal of the order of the Magistrate and revival of the complaint. It is in this view of the matter that the accused or other person cannot be deprived of hearing on the face of the express provision contained in section 401(2) of the Code. The stage is not important whether it is pre-process stage or post process stage."

13. This Court have no reason to take a different view as taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ravi Kumar Potdar (supra). Accordingly, the objections are allowed and held that present CRR Nos.6/2015, 8/2015 and 477/2015 are not directly entertainable to the High Court.

14. However, considering the fact that revisions are pending since 2015, it is directed that in case if the revision is filed before the Sessions court within a period of 60 days from today, the said revisions shall not be dismissed on the question of limitation and shall be decided on merit in accordance with law.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 9880

15. In view of above, CRR Nos.6/2015, 8/2015 and 477/2015 stand disposed of.

16. However, in CRR No.1247 of 2016, the impugned order has been passed by the 14th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Indore, therefore, the objections have no substance. The revision against the order of Additional Sessions Judge will lie to the High Court only, accordingly, CRR No.1247/2016 is maintainable. Hence, CRR No.1247/2016 be listed for arguments in the second week of May, 2026.

17. Let a signed copy of this order be retained in CRR No.8/2015 and photocopy of the same be kept in the record of connected revisions.

(GAJENDRA SINGH) JUDGE Vatan