[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3637
1 CRR-4536-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 4 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4536 of 2025
ANIL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance
Shri Sunil Gupta, learned Senior Counsel with Ms. Dhriti Joshi,
learned counsel for the petitioner [P-1].
Shri Vivek Singh, learned Senior counsel with Shri Rajesh Yadav,
counsel for the respondent.
Shri Rajendra Singh Suryavanshi appearing on behalf of Advocate
General[r-1].
Heard on:22.01.2026
Delivered On: 04.02.2026
ORDER
1. This criminal revision is preferred under Section 438 read with
Section 442 of BNSS, 2023 being aggrieved by the order dated 03.07.02025
passed in ST No.37/2025 by First Additional Session Judge, Ujain arising
out of Crime No.139/2024 Registered at Police Station Kotwali, Ujjain under
Section 127(1), 115(2), 296, 351(2), 304(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 whereby the
application filed on behalf of the complainant to implicate an additional
accused Satish Sindal under Section 358 of BNSS, 2023 has been rejected.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3637
2 CRR-4536-2025
2. Facts of the case are that the revision petitioner is real uncle of
respondent no.2 Satish Sindal. There is a family dispute between them. First
Information Report (Annexure A/3) was lodged on 04.09.2024 at 6:30 PM at
police Station Kotwali, Ujjain regarding the incident dated 01.09.2024 by
Subham Sindal impleading respondent no.2 and Ajay Sindal and their one
companion narrating the incident with revision petitioner at about 8:30AM
on 01.09.2024 disclosing the place of incident 0.5KM towards east from the
police station Kotwali Ujjain Near Saint Meera Krishna Kunj School,
Nijatpura, Ujjain. The source of information of informant Shubham was the
description of the incident by Anil Sindal in the morning of 01.09.2024.
After investigation, the police found the involvement of three persons
namely Ajay S/o Prem Narayan Sindal, Tinku S/o Kailash Jatwa and Ayush
S/o Rajendra Shrivastava in the incident and submitted the final charge-sheet
against those three persons, but did not find involvement of respondent no.2
and submitted closure report in respect of respondent no.2.
3. The case was committed before the learned Sessions Court and the
learned Session Court took cognizance against Ajay, Tinku and Ayush vide
order dated 24.02.2025 under section 193 of Cr.P.C., 1973/under Section 213
of BNSS, 2023. The revision petitioner approached the Court for summoning
respondent no.2, but the prayer was rejected vide order dated 14.07.2025.
Thereafter, Anil Sindal examined himself as PW-1 on 02.06.2025 and again
preferred an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., 1973/under Section
358 of BNSS, 2023 for summoning respondent no.2. The prayer was again
rejected vide order dated 03.07.2025.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3637
3 CRR-4536-2025
4. Challenging the order dated 03.07.2025, this revision petition has
been preferred on the ground that specific allegations are made in the FIR
against Satish Sindal. Statement of Subham Sindal as PW-2 recorded before
the trial Court on 31.07.2025 demonstrate that his statements under Section
161 of Cr.P.C., 1973 was not recorded properly to exclude Satish Sindal. The
revision petitioner's statements dated 19.09.2024 and 18.11.2024 have not
been contradictory regarding the involvement of respondent no.2. As per the
statement of revision petitioner, it is alleged that Satish Sindal hit him with
an iron rod establishing a prima facie case against Satish Sindal. Further, the
police failed to verify that there were two separate doors in the house of
Satish Sindal, one in front and another at the back side of the house. As per
the CCTV Footage of Saint Meera School, the revision petitioner was
stopped by Ajay Sindal co-accused and it sows that the testimony of
Premnarayan is not reliable. Report was filed on 04.09.2024, but the CCTV
Footage was recovered on 09.09.2025. The Footage in question possibly
have been tempered. The CCTV Footage of Saint Meera School disclosed
the timing of incident 12 hours prior to the timings of actual incident. There
is possibility that Satish Sindal could have return home within ten minutes
gap. The electronic evidence in the form of pendrive containing footage
collected from Saint Meera School and second one recorded by co-accused
Ayush and 3rd one CCTV footage of Premnarayan's house, if considered
cumulatively, shows ill intention of Premnarayan that could have himself
asked the police to take such recordings from possession of Ayush, but the
learned trial Court erred in not considering the same. The police failed to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3637
4 CRR-4536-2025
appreciate exact tower location of Satish Sindal. Satish Sindal is having
criminal records. The police as well as the learned trial Court failed to
consider these material available.
5. Heard.
6. Counsel for the respondents submits that the investigation has been
conducted in fair manner, there is no interest of the police to exonerate only
one brother and to file the charge-sheet against another brothers. The police
identified the actual three culprits and traced the person whose name was not
mentioned in the FIR and cannot give clean chit to that person whose name
has wrongly been mentioned.
7. Perused the record.
8. Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab 2014
(3) SCC 92 considering the degree of satisfaction required for invoking the
power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., 1973 /under Section 358 of BNSS, 2023
in relevant para nos.98 and 99 held as under:
98. Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary
and an extra- ordinary power. It is to be exercised
sparingly and only in those cases where the
circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be
exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge
is of the opinion that some other person may also be
guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong
and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the
evidence led before the court that such power should be
exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.
99. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is
to be established from the evidence led before the court
not necessarily tested on the anvil of Cross-
Examination, it requires much stronger evidence than
mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3637
5 CRR-4536-2025
be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as
exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of
satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes
unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of
such satisfaction, the court should refrain from
exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In Section
319 Cr.P.C. the purpose of providing if 'it appears from
the evidence that any person not being the accused has
committed any offence' is clear from the words "for
which such person could be tried together with the
accused." The words used are not 'for which such
person could be convicted'. There is, therefore, no
scope for the Court acting under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to
form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused.
9. On the above standard, the evidence adduced before this Court is
being re-examined. Subham Sindal examined as PW-2 on 03.07.2025, was
not present at the time of incident and Anil Sindal PW-1 has narrated the
incident dated 01.09.2024 that at about 8:30AM, when he reached near Saint
Meera Krishna Kunj School, Nijatpura, Ujjain, the driver of white colour
Active vehicle stopped him, caught hold his hands, his nephew Ajay and
Satish Sindal (respondent no.2) reached there, Ajay was armed with iron rod
and caused injuries in his both hands. He named one another person Tinku
who caused injury by stick and Ayush caused injuries with kicks and fists. At
that time, Satish Sindal was preparing the video and asked that Anil Should
not be escaped. At that time, Ajay was armed with pistol and threatened with
pistol. His valuables were taken by all four accused persons including Satish
Sindal.
10. As per the FIR (Annexure A/3), the place of occurrence is near
Saint Meera Krishnakunj School, Nijatpura, Ujjain and the material collected
during investigation included the CCTV footage of CAM No.1 installed at
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3637
6 CRR-4536-2025
Saint Meera Krishnakunj School at Serial No.6 of the list of documents. This
CCTV Footage was collected by Head Constable Naveen Singh No.728 of
Police Station Kotwali, Ujjain and contents of that footage established the
presence of Aayush, Ajay and Tinku at the spot as well as their complicity in
the incident but the presence of respondent no.2 is nowhere established.
11. In the light of this electronic evidence, when this Court examined
the above evidence cumulatively then the standard of Hardeep Singh
(supra) is not satisfied for summoning the respondent no.2. Thus, the learned
trial Court has not committed any illegality and no interference is called for.
Resultantly, the revision petition stands fail and is hereby rejected.
12. A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court for
information.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
amit
