[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tanmay Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 February, 2026
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
1 CRR-4779-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRR No. 4779 of 2023
(TANMAY KUMAR SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 09-02-2026
Shri Vivek Kumar Choudhary - Advocate (through V.C) Ms. Vipra
Kochar Advocate for the applicant.
Ms. Shikha Baghel - Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
Shri Pramod Choubey - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
This case was reserved for orders on 3/2/2026. While perusing the file
for dictating the order, it is seen that the case has to be released and
arguments have to be heard again for the reasons that on certain aspect of the
Revision both the parties did not argue the main ground of Revision are:
(i) This Revision is directed against the order dated 14.8.2023 passed
in S.T No. 1117/2019 passed by learned III Additional Judge to the First
Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal (Crime No. 356/2019) - State v. Tanmay
Sharma. By the impugned order the learned Trial Court has framed charges
against accused Tanmay Sharma for the offences under Sections 420, 467,
468, 471 I.P.C and 66-C and 66-D of Information and Technology Act, 2008.
(ii) The order was challenged on the ground that the above mentioned
Sections are not attracted as incident is of 24.3.2016; however, no reasons
for delay has been assigned. Earlier compromise proceedings between the
parties on 11.8.2016 is not considered. It was not considered that earlier the
complainant went to U.K. on study Visa but when he started working there
then he was asked to leave the country. Earlier filing of private complaint
2 CRR-4779-2023
for the same cause has been suppressed by complainant. Opposite party is
trying to blackmail the accused for that purpose video recording and
transcription have been filed.
(iii) Earlier accused has filed some documents with application under
Section 294 Cr.P.C which has been taken on record. Visa application could
not be processed as the documents were not executed properly. Certain data
could not be recovered by the Police as laptop of the accused was sent for
forensic inquiry but no incriminating data could be recovered from it.
On the other hand learned counsel for respondent had supported the
framing of charges.
Both parties have relied upon certain citations of Hon'ble Supreme
Court; however, the same are not being mentioned here inasmuch as the case
is being released for fresh hearing on the ground:-
(i) multiple documents have been filed by the Revisioner but many of
them are 25-50% not readable and the Revisioner has filed typed copy but
this Court fails to understand that when the photo copy document is not
legible then how typed copy was got typed and how it was self-certified and
if the Revisioner, i.e., Accused was in possession of the original/legible copy
then they should have been filed and not the document which is non-
readable.
(ii) Some portion of the certain document have been cut from the side
may be due to improper photocopy, e.g., in Annexure A-5 page No. 43 is a
letter of Police Station Ayodhya Nagar dated 22.5.2018 but it is not legible.
Same is the situation at multiple documents, like Annexure A-7 at page No.
3 CRR-4779-2023
47. This document is also not properly photocopied and certain line(s) are
missing at the bottom. Similarly from page Nos. 56 to page 59 some
photographs have been filed which are almost 97 % black and nothing is
visible.
When the Revision is filed against Charge, the Revisioner could have
verified the documents very carefully so as to know whether any ground of
discharge is made out or not. Similarly documents filed by the Revisioner at
page 111/112 are not legible. Same situations continues at page Nos. 119,
120, 123, 124. The documents from page No. 151 to 154 are not legible.
Another point is that vide order dated 11.7.2023 an application filed
under Section 294, and 91 Cr.P.C by the accused Tanmay Sharma was
allowed by the trial Court but while taking documents on record it was
mentioned that on account of judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court at
Indore in M.Cr.C No. 25598/2018 - Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of
India order dated 26.11.2018, that documents can be taken on record but they
cannot be used as arguments but can be used in his defence, during
evidence. Therefore, that stage has not come even in the order dated
14.8.2023 which is under challenge. Above fact of defence has been
mentioned in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (supra) the
Coordinate Bench of this Court has held :
"9. As far as section 294 Cr.P.C is concerned, there are no fetters
in the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the stage at which it
may be filed, hence to deny the accused to file application under
section 294 Cr.P.C was improper on the part of the trial Court. If
the application under section 294 may be allowed to file at any
stage, the only question is whether for the purpose of framing of
4 CRR-4779-2023
charge such documents can be looked into or not. As already held
in the case of Nitya dharmananda (supra), such documents can be
taken up at the stage of charge, if they are of sterling quality
having propensity to bring about discharge and only if the
documents are of such quality, they may be allowed to be
considered at the stage of charge.
10. In this case at hand the only question was whether there was a
forgery and fabrication of the consent letter which purported to
show the consent of the complainant in placing the disputed
property as collateral security with the bank or not. For the
purposes of determining this question, it was not necessary to go
into the relations between the complainant and the petitioner as
also the financial dealings that existed between them. Thus, for the
purpose of framing charge, the documents so sought to be
produced would not be of much help and for that matter, they
could not be considered to be material of sterling quality, which, if
considered, would bring about discharge of the petitioner. Hence,
the trial Court did not commit any mistake in holding that only the
documents placed on record by the prosecution would be
necessary in the case for framing charges. However, to disallow
filing of application under section 294 of the Cr.P.C at the state of
charge would be running contrary to the scheme of the Criminal
Procedure Code which does not bar filing of the application at the
stage of charge. Hence, so far as the impugned order disallowing
filing of application under section 294 Cr.P.C is concerned, the
same needs to be revoked as being contrary to law. However, the
petitioner would not be allowed to seek recourse to those
documents at the stage of arguments on the charge, which is the
real purpose for filing application under section 294 of the Cr.P.C
by the petitioner. Succinctly speaking the documents filed under
section 294 can be used for confronting the complainant but
cannot be used in the arguments for charge. (emphasis supplied)
11. The petition under section 482 Cr.P.C is thus answered and it
is ordered that although the trial Court was wrong in denying
application under section 294 Cr.P.C, but committed no mistake
when it held that such documents cannot be used by accused at the
stage of arguments. However, he may use these documents in his
defence during evidence." (emphasis supplied)
In the case at hand before the trial Court, the learned trial Judge has
5 CRR-4779-2023
mentioned this fact in his order that documents taken on record of the
accused as per order dated 11.7.2023 cannot be looked into at this stage and
only the charge-sheet is to be considered and defence of the accused cannot
be looked at this stage. Now the above order dated 11.7.2023, which is
mentioned in the order dated 14.8.2023 was never argued by learned counsel
for rival parties and even otherwise accused has not challenged the order
dated 11.7.2023. Therefore, that order has become final. Therefore, whether
again same point can be argued when it is not challenged before this
Revision Court? On this aspect, learned counsel for both parties did not
argue.
I n Nitya Dharmananda @ K. LOenin and another v. Sri Gopal
Sheelum Reddy Also known as Nithya Bhaktananda and another [Acquittal
and Bail Cases 2018 (I) 99 SC], Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 6 and
9 held as under:
6. It is settled law that at the stage of framing of charge, the
accused cannot ordinarily invoke Section 91. However, the court
being under the obligation to impart justice and to uphold the law,
is not debarred from exercising its power, if the interest of justice
in a given case so require, even if the accused may have no right
to invoke Section 91. To exercise this power, the court is to be
satisfied that the material available with the investigator, not made
part of the chargesheet, has crucial bearing on the issue of framing
of charge.
9. Thus, it is clear that while ordinarily the Court has to proceed
on the basis of material produced with the charge sheet for dealing
with the issue of charge but if the court is satisfied that there is
material of sterling quality which has been withheld by the
investigator/prosecutor, the court is not debarred from summoning
or relying upon the same even if such document is not a part of the
charge sheet. It does not mean that the defence has a right to
6 CRR-4779-2023
invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. de hors the satisfaction of the court, at
the stage of charge.
Therefore, in the present revision before this Court if it is a case of the
Revisioner that trial Court should have considered its document as admitted
on 13.7.2023 and it is a contrary order, the document shall not be considered
at the stage of framing of charge but only during the trial then it should have
been challenged specifically.
Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above this case is being released.
List in the next week for hering arguments in this Revision.
It is also made clear that after hearing the learned counsel for both
parties, then if required original session trial record can be summoned so as
to clearly know the contents of charge-sheet along with documents filed by
Investigating Agency.
Interim relief as per order dated 4.4.2024 shall continue till next date
of hearing.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
VKT
