[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
K.D Choubey Kalidas Choubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 February, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6928
1 MCRC-8157-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 8157 of 2026
K.D CHOUBEY KALIDAS CHOUBEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arvind Singh Chauhan - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Mohit Shivhare - GA for the respondents/State.
..................................................................................................................................................
Reserved on : 23/02/2026
Delivered on : 25/02/2026
..................................................................................................................................................
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on for
pronouncement this day, the Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke
pronounced/passed the following:
ORDER
This petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS/Section 482
Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 17.01.2026 passed by the Third
Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Criminal Revision No. 384/2025,
whereby the revision filed by the applicant was dismissed and the order
dated 11.09.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Gwalior in unregistered complaint No. 19/2021 was affirmed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant retired on
31.10.2017 from the post of Sub-Divisional Officer under Madhya Pradesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6928
2 MCRC-8157-2026
Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Limited. After retirement, he
came to know that his second higher pay scale granted from 28.02.2004 was
allegedly reduced from Rs.10,100/- to Rs.9,800/- and that certain documents
were allegedly prepared by the proposed accused persons to cause financial
loss to him. Alleging offences under Sections 418, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34
of the IPC, the applicant filed a private complaint before the learned JMFC,
Gwalior. His statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of
witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded. The learned Trial Court,
by order dated 11.09.2025, dismissed the complaint under Section 203
Cr.P.C., holding that the dispute appeared to be of civil nature relating to
service and pay fixation and no sufficient ground was made out for
proceeding against the proposed accused. Against the said order, the
applicant preferred Criminal Revision No. 384/2025, which was dismissed
by the learned Revisional Court on 17.01.2026 affirming the findings of the
Trial Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the courts
below failed to appreciate that forged and fabricated documents were
prepared by the proposed accused after his retirement to reduce his pay scale
and pension. It is argued that from the statements recorded under Sections
200 and 202 Cr.P.C., a prima facie case under the aforesaid penal provisions
is made out. It is contended that the courts below committed legal error in
treating the matter as civil in nature and dismissing the complaint under
Section 203 Cr.P.C. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned orders be set
aside and cognizance be directed to be taken against the proposed accused.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6928
3 MCRC-8157-2026
4. Learned counsel for the State opposed the petition and submitted
that both the Trial Court and the Revisional Court have recorded concurrent
findings that the dispute pertains to service matters and pay fixation, for
which appropriate civil or service remedies are available. It is submitted that
the present petition is, in substance, a second revision, which is not
maintainable in view of the statutory bar. No perversity or illegality in the
concurrent findings has been pointed out.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. It is not in dispute that the complaint filed by the applicant was
dismissed by the learned JMFC under Section 203 Cr.P.C. after considering
the material available on record. The Revisional Court, after re-appreciating
the material, affirmed the order of dismissal. Thus, there are concurrent
findings of fact recorded by two courts holding that the dispute is essentially
of civil/service nature and that no sufficient ground exists for proceeding
criminally against the proposed accused.
7. The inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 BNSS (Section
482 Cr.P.C.) cannot be exercised to circumvent the statutory bar of second
revision. Entertaining the present petition on the same grounds would
amount to permitting a second revision, which is not maintainable in law. No
patent illegality, jurisdictional error, or perversity in the impugned orders has
been demonstrated so as to warrant interference under inherent jurisdiction.
8. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by the Trial Court and
the Revisional Court and in absence of any glaring illegality or miscarriage
of justice, this Court finds no ground to interfere.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6928
4 MCRC-8157-2026
9. The petition, being devoid of merit and not maintainable, is hereby
dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
neetu
NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHASHANK
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=36b486bb0d381b950e435ec0
SHASH
9e066bc6b58cb947c1474b7dc349a1cf2
7eaa2ce, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR,CID -
7063574, postalCode=474001,
st=Madhya Pradesh,
ANK
serialNumber=e60a9bbfc39e0ee500eaa
de1e0b3b8565cb3a7dc9f5cd048197df0
ff3149ae58, cn=NEETU SHASHANK
Date: 2026.02.25 18:35:27 +05'30'
