[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr Madhu Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1664
1 CRR-5560-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5560 of 2025
DR MADHU JAIN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Naresh Piplodiya - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rajendra Singh Suryavanshi - GA for the State.
(Heard on: 14.01.2026)
(Delivered on: 19.01.2026)
ORDER
The Police Station- City Kotwali, District Mandsaur has reported that
they have not collected any footage of C.C.T.V. installed at RK Hospital
Nayapura Road, District- Mandsaur.
With the consent of both the parties heard finally at the stage of
motion.
This criminal revision is preferred being aggrieved by order dated
11.03.2025 in Regular RCT No.235/2024 pending before the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Mandsaur whereby the charges under sections 294,
section 506-Part-II, 427 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code has
been framed against the present revision petitioner in a case arising out of
crime No.636/2023 registered at Police Station- City Kotwali, District
Mandsaur.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1664
2 CRR-5560-2025
2. Facts of the case in brief are that, revision petitioner is daughter-in-
law of Dr. R.D. Jain and Smt. Kamla Jain and runs a hospital in the title of
R.K. Hospital at Nayapura Road, District Mandsaur (M.P.). A complaint was
made through Vishal Pandey PRO of R.K. Hospital at Nayapura Road,
District Mandsaur (M.P.) regarding the incident dated 21.01.2023 in which it
was alleged that revision petitioner along with Firoz S/o Munna Pathan,
Gudi Bi and Moti entered the hospital premises by breaking the lock and
uttered obscene words and caused damages to the hospital property including
sonography machine and extended threat to kill. The incident happened due
to the dispute between husband of the revision petitioner and revision
petitioner.
3. The offence under sections 454, 294, 506, 427 read with section 34
of the IPC was registered against four named and other persons including
present revision petitioner. After investigation final report was submitted.
4. The trial court has framed charges under Sections 454, 294, 506,
and 427 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The present petition challenges the
framing of these charges in relation to the alleged incident dated 21.11.2023
occurred between 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
5. Challenging the framing of charges this revision petition is preferred
on the ground that FIR does not mentions any such abusing words was
uttered. It does not reflect any imminent danger was caused. This revision
petition is preferred only to humiliate the revision petitioner who herself is a
senior doctor. There is no evidence that any damages was caused to the
hospital property including sonography machine. Charges have been framed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1664
3 CRR-5560-2025
without applying the mind. Nothing has been seized to demonstrate that any
damage was caused to the hospital property.
6. Heard.
7. Counsel for the respondent/State opposed the revision petition.
8. Before dealing with the rival contentions, it is appropriate to refer
to the scope of exercise of power under section 227 of the Cr.P.C or
presently section 250 of the BNSS, 2023. The Apex Court in P.Vijayan vs.
State of Kerala and another - (2010) 2 SCC 398, made an in-depth
consideration regarding the scope of power under section 227 Cr.P.C and
held thus:
"10. Before considering the merits of the claim of both
the parties, it is useful to refer to Section 227 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which reads as
under:
"227. Discharge. -- If, upon consideration of the record
of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and
after hearing the submissions of the accused and the
prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there
is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his
reasons for so doing."
If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to
suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion,
the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the
accused and at this stage he is not to see whether the
trial will end in conviction or acquittal. Further, the
words "not sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused" clearly show that the Judge is not a mere post
office to frame the charge at the behest of the
prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial mind to the
facts of the case in order to determine whether a case
for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In
assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the court to
enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a
weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1664
4 CRR-5560-2025
which is really the function of the court, after the trial
starts.
11. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to
sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused. In other words, the sufficiency of ground
would take within its fold the nature of the evidence
recorded by the police or the documents produced
before the court which ex facie disclose that there are
suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to
frame a charge against him."
9. In Sajjan Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation -(2010) 9
SCC 368,(2010) 9 SCC 368, the Apex Court has laid down certain
guiding principles for discharge as under:
"21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope
of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following
principles emerge:
(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing
the charges under Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted
power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited
purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case
against the accused has been made out. The test to
determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts
of each case.
(ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose
grave suspicion against the accused which has not been
properly explained, the court will be fully justified in
framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a
mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the
broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the
evidence and the documents produced before the court,
any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there
cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the
matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a
trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court
could form an opinion that the accused might have
committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1664
5 CRR-5560-2025
conviction the conclusion is required to be proved
beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has
committed the offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative
value of the material on record cannot be gone into but
before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial
mind on the material placed on record and must be
satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused
was possible.
(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is
required to evaluate the material and documents on
record with a view to find out if the facts emerging
therefrom taken at their face value disclose the
existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged
offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it
cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all
that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is
opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of
the case.
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives
rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave
suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to
discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see
whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal."
10. The position of law enunciated in the said decisions reveals that
while invoking the power under section 227 of the Cr.P.C, the judge
concerned has to consider only the record of the case and the document
produced along with the same. If on such consideration, the Court formed an
opinion that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused
concerned, he shall be discharged after recording the reasons therefor. It is
also evident from the precedence on the aforesaid question that while
exercising the said power, the Court could sift the materials produced along
with the final report only for the purpose of considering the question whether
there is ground to proceed against the accused concerned.
11. The further limitation that at the stage of framing of charge or
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1664
6 CRR-5560-2025
considering the discharge application, the impermissibility of mini trial as
laid down in State of Rajasthan vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap - 2021 SCC
OnLine SC 314 is being referred as under:
"At the stage of framing of the charge and /or considering the
discharge application, the mini trial is not permissible."
12. In CBI vs. Aryan Singh -2023 SCC Online SC 379 also, the
same position of law has been reiterated. The relevant paragraph from the
said judgment is extracted herein below:
"Para 10 ....As per the cardinal principle of law, at the
stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal
proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the
mini trial.
At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court has a very
limited jurisdiction and is required to consider "whether
any sufficient material is available to proceed further
against the accused for which the accused is required to
be tried or not."
13. In this case, final report submitted under section 173 of the
Cr.P.C., 1973 refers the name of Mangal Singh Sisodiya S/o Inder Singh
Sisodiya, Rahul S/o Munawarlal Makwana as eye witnesses alongwith the
complainant Vishal Pandey and the documents includes the Nuksani
Panchnama. The statement of eye witness Mangal Singh Sisodiya and Rahul
Makwana and complainant Vishal Pandey and Nuksani Panchnama are
sufficient to satisfy the standard of "Grave Suspicion" for framing of charges
in the aforesaid sections against the revision petitioner. Non-collection of
C.C.T.V. footage of R.K. Hospital at Nayapura Road, District Mandsaur
(M.P.) cannot be a ground to discharge in the light of material collected
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1664
7 CRR-5560-2025
during the investigation. Accordingly, present criminal revision is dismissed.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
ajit
