[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manisha Dangi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2570
1 CRR-4433-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4433 of 2024
RUPESH DANGI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Satyendra Kumar Vyas - Senior Advocate with Shri Aniruddha
Gokhale - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Gajendra Singh Dodia- GA for the State.
Shri C.L.Yadav- Senior Advocate with Shri Jagdish Chand Dangi-
Advocate for the respondent no.2 to 4.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5073 of 2024
MANISHA DANGI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri C.L.Yadav- Senior Advocate with Shri Jagdish Chand Dangi-
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Gajendra Singh Dodia - GA for the State.
(Heard on: 09.01.2026)
(Delivered on: 27.01.2026)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 27-01-2026
19:46:03
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2570
2 CRR-4433-2024
ORDER
Both the revision petitions arisen out of an incident dated 09.05.2019
at village Sedra within the territorial jurisdiction of P.S.-Chapiheda, District
Rajgarh (M.P.) and a crime no.122/2019 and crime No.123/2019 were
registered.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that revision petitioner of both the
petitions were husband and wife. They were married on 28.1.2007 through
Arya Samaj Mandir, Bhopal and on 27.04.2007 at collective marriage
ceremony at village Dakora. Revision petitioner in CRR No.4433/2024
husband got selected as ACI-II in 2009. Later on revision petitioner in CRR
No.5073/2024 got selected on the post of Sub-Inspector in M.P. Police
Department. Their personal life did not continued cordial. A series of cases
were filed between the couple and vide judgment dated 28.07.2018 in
RCHMS No.13/2017 by Principal Judge, Family Court, Rajgarh (M.P.). The
marital tie was dissolved. The dissolution of the marriage did not result in the
resolution of the disputes.
3. The genesis of the present revision petitions is incident dated
09.05.2019 at village Sedra, P.S.-Chapikheda, District- Rajgarh (M.P.) where
both attended the marriage ceremony. First Information Report of crime
No.122/2019 at P.S.-Chapikheda, District- Rajgarh (M.P.) was lodged by
one Omprakash Dangi Advocate by profession. The contents of the FIR was
that Rupesh Dangi dashed his wife Manisha Dangi and her 3 month old
daughter by Indigo Car. This informant was representing Manisha Dangi in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2570
3 CRR-4433-2024
her divorce case. In the incident, Omprakash Dangi sustained injuries.
Primarily this offence was registered under section 279 & 337 of the IPC
against Rupesh Dangi. The charge sheet was submitted under section 279,
337 and 307 of the IPC. Vide impugned order dated 12.08.2021 in ST
No.28/2020 charges under section 307 of the IPC were framed against
Rupesh Dangi and challenging the framing of charges in ST No.28/2020
arising out of crime No.122/2019 registered at P.S.- Chapikheda, District-
Rajgarh (M.P.) CRR No.4433/2024 have been preferred.
4. At the same time FIR of Crime No.123/2019 was registered by one
Mukesh companion of Rupesh Dangi against Omprakash @Om Dangi and
three companions for attempt to murder of Rupesh Dangi under section 294,
323, 337 and 506 of the IPC. The case was committed to the sessions court
and was registered as ST No.27/2020.The proceedings were challenged
before the High Court and vide order dated 14.07.2022 in MCRC
No.3249/2022. The FIR of Crime No. 123/2019 dated 10.05.2019 was
registered at Police Station Chapikheda, District Rajgarh (M.P.), and the
charge-sheet arising therefrom, along with all consequential proceedings of
S.T. No. 27/2020, were quashed qua Manisha Dangi. The aforesaid order
was challenged by Rupesh Dangi before the Apex Court and Hon'ble Apex
Court vide order dated 09.12.2024 in Special Leave Petition (Criminal)
No.15705/2023 set aside the order dated 14.07.2023 in MCRC
No.32495/2022 passed by High Court of M.P. at Indore with the following
observations:-
" Accordingly, the impugned order passed by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2570
4 CRR-4433-2024
the High Court stands set aside.
It is informed that respondent No. 2 was
granted bail:
however, she shall appear before the trial
Court on the date so fixed in the trial and
shall cooperate in early disposal of trial.
It is made clear here that the observations
made hereinabove are only for the purpose of
deciding the issue whether quashment as
ordered by the High Court was justified or
not and would not adversely affect the
defence of respondent No.2 during trial."
5. Thereafter charges were framed against Manisha Dangi under
section 294 and 307 of the IPC vide order dated 12.08.2024. Challenging the
order dated 12.08.2024 CRR No.5073/2024 has been preferred.
6. Heard learned counsel in both the revision petitions argued at
length.
7. Firstly, this court is dealing with CRR No.5073/2024. The challenge
is on the ground that documents submitted with the final report does not
discloses offence under section 307 of the IPC. The report provided by
Omprakash is prior in time. There was family dispute between Manisha and
Rupesh. Charges have been framed ignoring above factual positions and the
fact that Manisha and her 3 month daughter was subjected to assault and
attempting to kill through motor vehicle as a weapon of offence. They
referred R. Prakash v. State of Karnataka AIR 2004 SC 1812, Bherulal Tank
Vs. State of M.P. 2021 Latest Caselaw 6589 and Dilwar Balu Kurane Vs.
State of Maharashtra (2002) 2 SCC 135.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2570
5 CRR-4433-2024
8. For appreciating the points raised in this criminal revision, this court
is reproduced section 307 of the IPC.
"307. Attempt to murder.--Whoever does
any act with such intention or knowledge,
and under such circumstances that, if he by
that act caused death, he would be guilty of
murder, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may
extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to
fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by
such act, the offender shall be liable either to
imprisonment for life, or to such punishment
as is herein before mentioned. Attempts by
life convicts.--When any person offending
under this section is under sentence of
imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is
caused, be punished with death."
9. The first part of Section 307 of IPC deals with a situation, where no
injury is caused and second part of Section 307 of IPC deals with a situation
where hurt is caused.
10. From the plain reading of Section 307 of IPC, it is clear that
presence of injury is not sine qua non for making out an offence under
Section 307 of IPC. If any act is done with an intention or knowledge that, if
assailant by that act causes death, then the assailant would be guilty of
murder, then such act would certainly be punishable under Section 307 of
IPC.
11. Thus, the nature of injuries is not a decisive factor to determine as
to whether the act of the assailant would be an act punishable under Section
307 of IPC or not.
12. Before dealing with the rival contentions, it is appropriate to refer to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2570
6 CRR-4433-2024
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2570
7 CRR-4433-2024
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
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."
13. 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:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2570
8 CRR-4433-2024
(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 conviction the conclusion is required to be proved
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2570
9 CRR-4433-2024
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."
14. The position of law enunciated in the said decisions reveals that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2570
10 CRR-4433-2024
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.
15. The further limitation that at the stage of framing of charge or
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."
16. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2570
11 CRR-4433-2024
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."
17. Apart from that in this case, the matter have been examined before
the Apex Court on perusal of final report as well as documents submitted
with the report. There is no illegality in framing of charges under section 307
of the IPC hence, Criminal Revision No.5073/2024 have no substance is
hereby dismissed.
18. Now come to CRR No.4433/2024 arising out of crime
No.122/2019 challenging the order dated 12.08.2024 in ST No.28/2020
whereby the charges under section 307 of the IPC have been framed against
revision petitioner Rupesh Dangi. This revision petition is preferred on the
ground that the complainant in the present case is a hardened criminal,
against whom as many as ten criminal cases are registered in various police
stations. Initially FIR has been registered for offence under section 279 and
337 of the IPC and subsequently section 307 of the IPC was added
maliciously. The victim is ex-wife of the revision petitioner and is residing
with the complainant presently. The present FIR is nothing but a camouflage
by the complainant, as he was not in a condition to get the FIR registered in a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2570
12 CRR-4433-2024
timely manner. He was brutally assaulted by the complainant and he was not
still recovered from the injuries sustained as a result by the complainant.
Manisha Dangi had filed many frivolous complaints against him. MLC of the
Manisha Dangi, her daughter and the complainant clearly reflects that the
injuries were simple in nature and based upon such an MLC no case under
section 307 could have been registered. All the injuries sustained by Manisha
Dangi were found to be 72 hours old. The said injuries cannot be caused by
the revision petitioner on 09.05.2019. It is crystal clear that the ex-wife of the
petitioner has been filing frivolous cases against the present petitioner which
could have been tested by different courts and time and again it has been
found that the complaints are maliciously.
19. The above raised grounds are to be tested on the strength of
material collected during the investigation and in the light of principles
mentioned above. The presence of the revision petitioner at the place of
incident on 09.05.2019 at 10:30 p.m. is not in dispute. The allegations are
that he hit Manisha Dangi, her 3 month old daughter and Omprakash Dangi
by indigo car bearing registration No.MO-04-CM-8363. When the incident
is examined with the surrounding facts that there was a long standing dispute
between husband and wife and Omprakash was representing the wife of
Manisha Dangi and the incident happened at a place there was no occasion
top drive the vehicle in the manner in which incident is stated and motor
vehicle may be used as a weapon of offence on the ground raised are the
matter of defense and not to be tested at this stage. So far the fact that she
sustained injuries then it is on record that the injuries of Rupesh stated are
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2570
13 CRR-4433-2024
after the incident of crime No.122/2019. These injuries do not negate the
occurrence of the prior incident reported as Crime No.
122/2019. Accordingly, Criminal Revision No.4433/2024 also have no
substance and is hereby dismissed in the light of the above mentioned
principles.
20. Serious allegations are leveled against each other. They are in
public service and the pendency of this case impacts their service.
Accordingly such cases requires adjudication on priority. In such cases the
Apex Court had issued guidelines as mentioned in the case of Central Bureau
of Investigation Vs. Mir Usman@ Ara @Mir Usman Ali in 2025 INSC 1155
has stressed on adopting the practice of conducting trial on day to day basis
in important and sensitive cases. In such cases Apex Court has suggested the
course to be adopted as below:-
"........[1] The proceedings in every inquiry or trial shall
be held expeditiously.
[2] When the stage of examination of witnesses starts
such examination shall be continued from day-to-day
until all the witnesses in the attendance have been
examined except for special reasons to be recorded in
writing.
[3] When the witnesses are in attendance before the
Court no adjournment or postponement shall be granted
without examining them, except for special reasons to
be recorded in writing.
[4] The Court should not grant the adjournment to suit
the convenience of the advocate concerned except on
very exceptional grounds like bereavement in the family
and similar exceptional reasons duly supported by
memo. Be it noted that the said inconvenience of an
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2570
14 CRR-4433-2024
advocate is not a "Special Reason" for the purpose of
bypassing the immunity of Section 309 of the Cr.P.C.
[5] In case of non-cooperation of accused or his
counsel, the following shall be kept in mind:
a. In case of non-cooperation of the counsel, the Court
shall satisfy itself whether the non-cooperation is in
active collusion with the accused to delay the trial. If it
is so satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing, it
may, if the accused is on bail, put the accused on notice
to show cause why the bail cannot be cancelled.
b. In cases where the accused is not in collusion with
lawyer and it is the lawyer who is not cooperating with
the trial, the Court may for reason to be recorded,
appoint an amicus curiae for the accused and fix a date
for proceeding with cross-examination/trial.
c. The Court may also in appropriate cases impose cost
on the accused commensurate with the loss suffered by
the witness including the expenses to attend the court.
d. In case when the accused is absent and the witness is
present for examination, in that case the Court can
cancel the bail of accused if he is on bail. (Unless an
application is made on his behalf seeking permission for
his counsel to proceed to examine the witness present
even in his absence, provided the accused gives an
undertaking in writing that, he would not dispute, his
identity as a particular accused in the case.)
[6] The Presiding Officer of each Court may evolve the
system for framing a schedule of constructive working
days for examination of witnesses in each case, well in
advance, after ascertaining the convenience of counsel
on both sides.
[7] The summons or process could be handed over to
the Public Prosecutor in-charge of the case to cause
them to be served on the witnesses, as per schedule
fixed by the Court."
21. The trial court is directed to proceed in the trial of both the cases
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2570
15 CRR-4433-2024
on day to day basis as mentioned in Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Mir
Usman@ Ara @Mir Usman Ali in 2025 INSC 1155 and if any party did not
cooperate then proceed against him with strictly.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
ajit
