[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr Ramnarayan Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 February, 2026
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12165
1 CRR-489-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 11th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 489 of 2018
DR RAMNARAYAN SAHU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manish Datt - Senior Advocate Assisted by Shri Shubham Mishra - Advocate
for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Mishra - Advocate with Shri Ruchir Jain, Advocate for the
respondent.
Ms. Sonali Shrivastava - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Later on; 11.02.2026
Record is received.
Heard on admission.
This revision petitioner is admitted for final hearing.
With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard
finally.
2 . Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that the order of
the Sessions Court dated 13.01.2018 is bad in law, as at this stage, without
recording evidence and considering that there is no allegation against the
applicant, such an order could not have been passed.
3 . Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant, however, supports
the impugned order and submits that there is no ground for setting aside the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12165
2 CRR-489-2018
same, because when the parties appear, they will again make the same
statements.
4 . This revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved by the
order dated 13.01.2018 passed in S.T. No. 422/2017 (Anand Muttungal vs.
Leo Cornelio and others) by the Additional Sessions Judge, District Bhopal.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge, while passing the order on framing
of charge after hearing arguments on 12.01.2018, exercised powers under
Sections 193 and 319 of the Cr.P.C. and, suo motu, took cognizance against
the present applicant (Dr. Ramnarayan Sahu, Neuropsychiatrist, Hamidia
Hospital, Bhopal) as an accused for offences under Section 328 read with
Sections 116 and 120‑B of the IPC.
5. It is seen that the learned Sessions Judge, Bhopal had registered the
case instituted on the private complaint of Anand Muttungal against Leo
Cornelio, Matthew V.C., and Johny P.J., arising out of Criminal Case No.
747 of 2013 under Section 328 read with Sections 116 and 120‑B of the IPC
on committal. It is further seen that the private complaint was before the
learned Court on 07.01.2013, although the endorsement on the private
complaint and the first order‑sheet is dated 07.01.2012. Private complaint
was filed by Anand Muttungal against Leo Cornelio, Matthew V.C., and
Johny P.J. The statement of Anand under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. was
recorded on 19.01.2013, and the statement of Philip was recorded on
14.01.2013. Thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class registered
the case on 07.02.2013 under Sections 328 read with Sections 116 and 120‑B
of the IPC. The case was subsequently committed to the Sessions Court on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12165
3 CRR-489-2018
03.10.2017 against the three accused persons, namely, Leo Cornelio,
Matthew V.C., and Johny P.J.
6. As stated above, the case was registered by the learned Sessions
Judge against the aforesaid three persons. It is further seen that no protest
petition was filed by the complainant before the Trial Court, and cognizance
was taken by the learned trial Court on its own.
7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Omi @ Omkar Rathore and another vs.
State of M.P., (2025) 2 SCC 621, relevant paragraphs 19 to 19.4 held as
below:
"19. The principles of law as regards Section 319CrPC may be
summarised as under:
19.1. On a careful reading of Section 319CrPC as well as the aforesaid
two decisions, it becomes clear that the trial court has undoubted jurisdiction
to add any person not being the accused before it to face the trial along with
other accused persons, if the Court is satisfied at any stage of the proceedings
on the evidence adduced that the persons who have not been arrayed as
accused should face the trial. It is further evident that such person even
though had initially been named in the FIR as an accused, but not charge-
sheeted, can also be added to face the trial.
19.2. The trial court can take such a step to add such persons as
accused only on the basis of evidence adduced before it and not on the basis
of materials available in the charge-sheet or the case diary, because such
materials contained in the charge-sheet or the case diary do not constitute
evidence.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12165
4 CRR-489-2018
19.3. The power of the court under Section 319CrPC is not controlled
or governed by naming or not naming of the person concerned in the FIR.
Nor the same is dependent upon submission of the charge-sheet by the police
against the person concerned. As regards the contention that the phrase "any
person not being the accused" occurred in Section 319 excludes from its
operation an accused who has been released by the police under Section 169
of the Code and has been shown in Column 2 of the charge-sheet, the
contention has merely to be stated to be rejected. The said expression clearly
covers any person who is not being tried already by the Court and the very
purpose of enacting such a provision like Section 319(1) clearly shows that
even persons who have been dropped by the police during investigation but
against whom evidence showing their involvement in the offence comes
before the criminal court are included in the said expression.
19.4. It would not be proper for the trial court to reject the application
for addition of new accused by considering records of the investigating
officer. When the evidence of complainant is found to be worthy of
acceptance then the satisfaction of the investigating officer hardly matters. If
satisfaction of investigating officer is to be treated as determinative then the
purpose of Section 319 would be frustrated."
8 . In the case at hand, it is seen that when the stage for taking
cognizance arises whether on the basis of an FIR or a private complaint, the
statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. or the statements
recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C then registration of the
case by the Magistrate or passing of the committal order, and the subsequent
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12165
5 CRR-489-2018
registration of case by the Sessions Court after committal in absence of any
protest petition or application by the complainant, leads this Court again to
the view already taken by this court in case of Ganesh Prashad Garg and
others Vs. State of M.P. and others, Criminal Revision No.2559/2025, order
dated 02.02.2026 that the stage for taking cognizance under Section 319 of
the Cr.P.C. has not yet arisen. At this stage, such cognizance is not proper.
Stage of Section 193 Cr.P.C has already passed. However, during the course
of the trial, after the recording of evidence on merits and at an appropriate
stage when the evidence of material witnesses has been recorded, the Trial
Court, either on an application or on its own motion, shall be free to pass an
order under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., if so required and deemed fit as per
law.
9. Regarding the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the
respondent this Court observes that when a case is initially registered, the
investigation statements recorded is always ex parte. However, after the
recording of evidence during trial, which includes cross‑examination, the
true substance of the evidence and charges if any made out
emerges. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that evidentiary value of the
statement will remain same on evaluation of evidence.
11. It is to be noted that the stage for taking cognizance under Section
193 of the Cr.P.C. has already passed, as prima facie cognizance was taken
on 25.10.2017, when the case was registered by the learned Sessions Judge.
Thereafter, the matter was fixed for hearing arguments on charges, meaning
the Court was to consider the charges against the three persons against whom
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12165
6 CRR-489-2018
case was committed to the Sessions Court. Therefore, stage for additional
cognizance against new accused now is under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C.
only, and the appropriate stage for exercising power under Section 319
would arise only after the recording of evidence of the prosecution's
important witnesses on merits. Needless to say that recording of the evidence
means examination in chief, cross-examination and re-examination if any.
12. Accordingly, for the reasons mentioned above, the order dated
13.01.2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhopal, whereby cognizance was
taken against the applicant Dr. Ramnarayan Sahu under Sections 193 and
319 of the Cr.P.C., is hereby set aside.
13. With the aforesaid observation, this revision is disposed of.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
NRJ
