[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rakesh Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 April, 2026
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29436
1 CRR-3136-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 16th OF APRIL, 2026
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3136 of 2022
RAKESH MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Raunak Yadav - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Sulekha Sharma - Panel Lawyer for the respondent 1/State.
ORDER
This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 has
been preferred by the petitioner/accused challenging the order dated
26.07.2022 passed by 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, District
Bhopal in S.T. No.323/2020, whereby charge under Sections 376(2)(n) and
323 of IPC has been framed against the petitioner.
2. As per prosecution case, the petitioner is alleged to have raped the
prosecutrix/respondent 2.
3. Taking this Court to the charge framed by the Court below as well
as to the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in
fact, no offence under the aforesaid sections has been committed by the
petitioner and he has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits
that without taking into consideration the entire material available on record
and even in absence of any material against the petitioner, the Court below
has committed an illegality in framing the charge against the petitioner under
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29436
2 CRR-3136-2022
the aforesaid offence. He also submits that in the impugned order also,
nothing has been mentioned as to what material is available against the
petitioner for framing the charge under the aforesaid Sections. On inter alia
submissions, he prays for setting aside the impugned order and for discharge
of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent 1/State supports the impugned
order and prays for dismissal of the criminal revision.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Case diary is not available. Further, no other document is available
on record of this Court for recording prima facie satisfaction against the
petitioner/accused regarding commission of the alleged offences.
7. However, as to on what basis the Court has found availability of
sufficient material against the petitioner, has not been mentioned in the
impugned order, which is creating doubt about the veracity of charge framed
by the Court under Sections 376(2)(n) and 323 of IPC against the petitioner,
which can be removed by the Court below itself by passing the speaking
order.
8. With a view to see the method and manner, in which the Court
below has exercised its jurisdiction, complete extract of the impugned order
dtd.26.07.2022, is quoted as under :
"रा य ारा ी सुरेश मालवीय एजीपी. उप थत ।
आरोपी राकेश िम ा अनुप थत उसक ओर ी दे व
शु ला अिधव ा ने उप थत होकर आवेदन अंतगत धारा-
317 द० ०स० का पेश कया, बाद वचार आवेदन वीकार
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29436
3 CRR-3136-2022
कया गया।
करण आरोप तक हे तु िनयत है ।
अिभयोजन ने अपने मामले का कथन, अिभयु के
व लगाये गये आरोप का वणन करते हुये और यह बताते
हुये क वह अिभयु के दोष को कस सा य म सा बत करने
क थापना करता है , अपना तक तुत कया।
आरोपीगण अिधव ा के आरोप पर तक वण कए
गए।
करण का अवलोकन कया गया।
करण म उपल ध साम ी के आधार पर आरोपी के
व धारा-376 (2) एन, 323 भा०द० व० के आरोप वरिचत
करने के थम या आधार उ प न होते ह। माननीय
सव च यायालय का अपने याय ांत लालू साद यादव
व टे ट ऑफ बहार 2007 (1) एस.सी.सी. 49 म यह
अिभमत रहा है क आरोप वरिचत करने पर कारण दे ना
आव यक नह ं है ।
आरोपी पर उपरो धारा के अंतगत आरोप वरिचत
कए गए। आरोप प तैयार कर आरोपी के अिधव ा को
पढ़कर सुनाए समझाए जाने पर आरोपी क ओर से उनके
अिधव ा ारा अपराध करना अ वीकार करते। हुए वचारण
चाहा। आरोपीगण क ओर से उनके अिधव ा का अिभवाक
अं कत कया गया।
आरोपी से द सं. क धारा 294 के अ तगत
अिभयोजन क ओर से तुत द तावेज क स यता
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29436
4 CRR-3136-2022
वीकार करने क अपे ा क गई जससे आरोपी क ओर से
उप थत अिधव ा ारा द तावेज क स यता से इं कार
कया।
करण अिभयोजन ारा वचारण काय म तुित
हे तु िनयत कया जाता है ।
करण वचारण कायकम तुित हे तु थोड दे र बाद
पेश हो।"
*****
9. This Court has in the case of Sanjay Jatav v. State of Madhya
Pradesh through the Police Station Berasiya and another, in Criminal
Revision No. 1130 of 2026 dtd.06.04.2026 (at Jabalpur), placing reliance on
the decisions in the case of Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd &
Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra, (1972) 3 SCC 28 2; Dilawar Balu Kurane
vs. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135 ; Ghulam Hassan Beigh vs.
Mohammad Maqbool Magrey and others, (2022) 12 SCC 657 ; Rajneesh
Kumar Soni vs. State of M.P., 2019 CrLJ 3515 ; Vinod Bohare vs. State of
M.P., (2015) 2 MPLJ (Cri) 358 ; Kamla Shankar Nagda vs. State Of
Rajasthan,Through Pp, 2026 Supreme (Raj) 159 ; Pawan Kumar vs. State of
Rajasthan, 2025 Supreme (Online) (RAJ) 1907; Ashok Bhadauria vs. State,
2016 Supreme (Del) 4389; Smt. Mewati Devi And Another vs. State of U.P.
and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine All 1050 , and Param Pal Singh Gandhi vs.
The State of Bihar, 2016 SCC OnLine Pat 10209 , held as under :
"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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29436
5 CRR-3136-2022
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 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 recording
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29436
6 CRR-3136-2022
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."
10. Apparently, aforesaid binding and settled legal position, has not
been followed by the Court below while passing the impugned order in the
instant case also.
11. Resultantly, the criminal revision succeeds and is hereby 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.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
Arun*
