[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramkishor @ Rammu Kushwaha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 February, 2026
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11004
1 CRR-318-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 6th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 318 of 2026
RAMKISHOR @ RAMMU KUSHWAHA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava - Advocate for the applicant.
Smt. Parvati Patel - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Heard on I.A.No.1861 of 2026, an application for condonation of
delay. Delay is of 120 days.
2. On due consideration, the aforesaid application is allowed. Delay in
filing the revision is hereby condoned.
3. Also heard on admission.
4. The revision is admitted for final hearing.
5 . This Criminal Revision is filed being aggrieved by the order dated
16/06/2025 passed in SC NDPS No.09/2025, whereby the learned
Special Judge (NDPS Act), Panna has framed the charges against the
applicant under Sections 8 r/w 18(c) NDPS Act.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused is on bail.
There was no ground to frame the charges under Sections 8 r/w 18(c)
NDPS Act.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11004
2 CRR-318-2026
7. When this Court wanted to know whether any application was filed
for discharge narrating the grounds on which charges should not be
framed. Learned Counsel fairly admits that that was done but he further
submits that the Court cannot act as a post-office while framing charges
and has to scrutinize the charge-sheet minutely.
8. Learned Panel Lawyer supports the impugned order.
9. This point is well settled that while writing an order for framing of
charge, only a short but concise order has to be passed and while
discharging the accused, a detailed order has to be made by the charges
are not being framed.
10. The law regarding discharge is well settled by Hon'ble Supreme
Court recently in the judgment dated 18/05/2023 in Cr.A No. 1399/2023
- Captain Manjeet Singh Virdhi (Retired) v. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf
and others, [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 462], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in paragraphs 11 has held as under :-
'11. The law on issue as to what is to be considered at the time
of discharge of an accused is well settled. It is a case in which
the Trial Court had not yet framed the charges. Immediately
after filing of chargesheet, application for discharge was filed.
The settled proposition of law is that at the stage of hearing on
the charges entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to
be believed. In case no offence is made out then only an
accused can be discharged. Truthfulness, sufficiency and
acceptability of the material produced can be done only at the
stage of trial. At the stage of charge, the Court has to satisfy
that a prima facie case is made out against the accused
persons. Interference of the Court at that stage is required only
if there is strong reasons to hold that in case the trial is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11004
3 CRR-318-2026
allowed to proceed, the same would amount to abuse of
process of the Court."
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and others arising out of S.L.P.(CRL) No.12354 of 2024 dated
29th November 2024 has held as under :-
"8. It is true that the appellants can apply for discharge.
However, the scope of application for discharge is completely
different from the scope of a petition for quashing the criminal
proceedings. While arguing a case for discharge, the
appellants will not be in a position to rely upon any document
which is not the part of charge sheet. The ground of abuse of
process of law will not be available while arguing discharge
application. However, in a petition for quashing either under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a wider challenge is
available including a challenge on the ground of abuse of
process of law. In such proceedings, the accused can rely
upon documents which are not the part of the charge-
sheet. Therefore, we reject the submission made by learned
counsel appearing for the State. Though the submissions made
on behalf of the State have no basis, we have dealt with
the same elaborately to ensure that the same are not urged in
a similar case."
12. In view of the aforesaid judgment Mukesh (supra), the scope of
revision is very limited.
13. Looking to the factual situation as narrated above, no interference
can be made. The order of framing of charges cannot be held to be
perverse.
14. Accordingly, this Revision is dismissed. However a liberty is granted
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11004
4 CRR-318-2026
to the applicant to raise all the factual and legal grounds before the trial
Court during trial, who shall at appropriate stage considered it minutely
and pass a final order at the time of judgment. In light of the judgment of
Mukesh (supra), if the parties so inclined and advised, they are free to
file a Writ Petition or proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C..
15. With the aforesaid liberty, the Revision is disposed of.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
mc
