[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Brajendra Singh Sengar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 March, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8151
1 MCRC-37665-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 9 th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 37665 of 2025
BRAJENDRA SINGH SENGAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Vineet Saxena - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Manish Saxena - Public Prosecutor for the State.
ORDER
The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita has been filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned
order dated 29.07.2025 passed by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind
in Criminal Revision No. 70 of 2025, whereby the order dated 16.06.2025
passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhind in MJC (R) No. 39 of
2025 has been affirmed.
The brief facts of the case are that an unregistered complaint bearing
UNC No. 318/2023 titled Rohit vs. Ravikant was presented before the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class on 12.07.2023. Upon presentation of
the complaint, the then Judicial Magistrate called for a status report and fixed
the matter for the said purpose on 18.12.2023. Thereafter, the case was fixed
for recording the complainant's evidence. Subsequently, on 23.09.2024, the
trial Court considered it appropriate to call for a report from the police and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8151
2 MCRC-37665-2025
accordingly directed the concerned police station to submit an investigation
report. Thereafter, the matter continued to be listed from time to time
awaiting submission of the said report. On 29.05.2025, the trial Court
recorded in a detailed order sheet that despite repeated directions issued to
the Station House Officer of Police Station City Kotwali, Bhind for
submission of the investigation report, the same had not been submitted. The
trial Court observed that such conduct prima facie constituted an offence
punishable under Section 210 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and that
proceedings in this regard could be undertaken under the provisions of
Section 384 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Accordingly,
through Constable Manish Mishra, bearing No. 210 of City Kotwali, Bhind,
an intimation letter was sent to the Station House Officer, City Kotwali,
Bhind calling upon him to explain as to why penal action should not be
initiated against him. Pursuant thereto, the matter was registered as a
Miscellaneous Criminal Case under Section 384 BNSS. Thereafter,
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 391/2025 titled State of Madhya Pradesh
vs. Brijendra Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali,
Bhind was registered. By order dated 29.05.2025, the trial Court directed the
petitioner to submit his written explanation on 14.06.2025 and further
directed that in the event of his failure to appear and submit the explanation,
ex parte proceedings would be initiated against him. On 14.06.2025, the
petitioner failed to submit the explanation as sought by the trial Court,
whereupon the matter was adjourned to 16.06.2025. Even on the said date,
no explanation was filed on behalf of the petitioner. Consequently, the trial
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8151
3 MCRC-37665-2025
Court, by order dated 16.06.2025, imposed a fine of Rs.100/- upon the
petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 210 of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita. Being aggrieved by the order dated 16.06.2025, the petitioner
preferred a criminal revision before the VII Additional Sessions Judge,
Bhind on the ground that the trial Court had imposed punishment without
following the prescribed procedure of trial, which is contrary to law. It was
contended that the petitioner had been penalized without due opportunity of
hearing and without adherence to the procedure mandated by law. However,
the said revision petition came to be dismissed by order dated 29.07.2025.
Hence, the present petition.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the
impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhind
and affirmed by the revisional Court is wholly illegal, arbitrary and contrary
to the settled principles governing criminal prosecution of public servants. It
is contended that the learned trial Court has convicted and punished the
petitioner in a summary manner without following the procedure prescribed
under law and without conducting any proper inquiry or trial as contemplated
under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
It is further submitted that the petitioner was, at the relevant time,
posted as Station House Officer at Police Station City Kotwali, Bhind and
was discharging his official duties. The trial Court merely issued a letter
seeking explanation and thereafter, without framing any formal accusation
and without recording any evidence, proceeded to convict and punish the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8151
4 MCRC-37665-2025
petitioner for the alleged offence under Section 210 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita. Such a course of action is wholly impermissible in law as the
conviction of a person for a criminal offence must necessarily follow a
procedure recognized by law, which includes framing of accusation,
opportunity of defence and adjudication upon evidence.
It is further submitted that the essential ingredients of Section 210 of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita have not been satisfied in the present case, as
the said provision contemplates a situation where a public servant knowingly
disobeys a direction of law with intention of causing injury or with the
knowledge that such disobedience is likely to cause injury. In the present
case, there is no material whatsoever on record to demonstrate that the
petitioner intentionally disobeyed the direction of the Court or such alleged
omission was accompanied by any intention to cause injury to any person. At
the most, the allegation relates to non-submission of an investigation report
within the stipulated time, which by itself cannot constitute the offence under
Section 210 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita unless the element of deliberate
and intentional disobedience is established.
Learned counsel further submits that even otherwise, the learned trial
Court has failed to consider the statutory framework governing offences
relating to acts committed in connection with judicial proceedings. Attention
of this Court is invited to Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, which provides that prosecution for certain offences affecting the
administration of justice can be initiated only upon a complaint in writing
made by the Court concerned or by a Court to which that Court is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8151
5 MCRC-37665-2025
subordinate. The said provision acts as a safeguard to ensure that criminal
prosecution relating to judicial proceedings is not initiated casually or
mechanically. Learned counsel contends that unless the Court forms an
opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice to prosecute the alleged
offender and thereafter files a complaint in accordance with the procedure
prescribed under the law, no criminal proceedings can be sustained.
It is further submitted that the impugned action of the trial Court,
whereby the petitioner was straightaway treated as an accused in a
miscellaneous criminal case and thereafter convicted without following the
procedure contemplated under Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, is legally unsustainable. The statutory safeguards provided
under the said provision have been completely bypassed, thereby rendering
the entire proceedings vitiated.
Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner was not afforded a
meaningful and effective opportunity of hearing before the order of
conviction was passed. The notice issued by the trial Court merely required
the petitioner to submit a written explanation and did not clearly indicate that
a criminal conviction would follow in the event of non-compliance. Before
imposing criminal liability upon a public servant, the Court ought to have
ensured strict compliance with the principles of natural justice, including
adequate opportunity to present his defence and explain the circumstances
which may have resulted in the delay in submission of the report.
It is further argued that the learned revisional Court failed to properly
appreciate the legal infirmities in the order passed by the trial Court and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8151
6 MCRC-37665-2025
mechanically affirmed the order of the trial Court without examining
whether the essential ingredients of the alleged offence were made out and
whether the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita had been followed.
On the aforesaid submission, learned counsel submits that the
impugned orders dated 16.06.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Bhind and dated 29.07.2025 passed by the VII Additional
Sessions Judge, Bhind suffer from serious legal and procedural irregularities
and are liable to be set aside. It is therefore prayed that the present petition be
allowed and the impugned orders be quashed.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the
petition and prayed for its rejection.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the
material available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner who was
posted as Station House Officer at Police Station City Kotwali, Bhind, was
directed by the trial Court to submit an investigation report in relation to the
complaint case pending before it and upon failure to submit the report within
the time expected by the Court, the learned trial Court proceeded to register a
miscellaneous criminal case and ultimately, convicted the petitioner for the
offence punishable under Section 210 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita by
invoking the provisions of Section 384 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita. However, a careful scrutiny of the proceedings indicates that the
learned trial Court did not follow the procedure recognized by law for
recording a conviction for a criminal offence. The petitioner was merely
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8151
7 MCRC-37665-2025
issued a notice calling upon him to submit an explanation and, upon his
failure to submit the same, he was directly held guilty and punished. No
formal accusation was framed against the petitioner, no evidence was
recorded, and no proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to him before
recording the finding of guilt. It is a well-settled principle of criminal
jurisprudence that before a person is convicted for an offence, the Court must
follow the procedure prescribed under law and provide a fair opportunity to
the accused to defend himself. The impugned proceedings clearly
demonstrate that such safeguards were not adhered to in the present case.
This Court further finds that the essential ingredients required to
constitute the offence under Section 210 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
have not been established. The said provision contemplates a deliberate and
intentional disobedience of a lawful direction by a public servant,
accompanied by the intention to cause injury or with the knowledge that
such disobedience is likely to cause injury. In the present case, there is
nothing on record to indicate that the alleged non-submission of the
investigation report by the petitioner was deliberate or accompanied by any
intention to cause injury to any person. In the absence of such material, the
trial Court could not have straightaway arrived at a finding of guilt against
the petitioner.
This Court also takes note of the statutory framework governing
prosecution for offences relating to acts connected with judicial proceedings.
Under Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, prosecution
for offences affecting the administration of justice is required to be initiated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8151
8 MCRC-37665-2025
in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein, which includes
formation of an opinion by the Court that it is expedient in the interests of
justice to prosecute the alleged offender and initiation of proceedings in the
manner contemplated by law. The record does not indicate that the procedure
envisaged under the said provision was followed before proceeding against
the petitioner.
The revisional Court, while affirming the order of the trial Court, also
failed to appreciate the aforesaid legal deficiencies and did not examine
whether the mandatory procedure prescribed under law had been complied
with. The revisional Court ought to have scrutinized whether the conviction
of the petitioner had been recorded in accordance with the settled principles
governing criminal trials. The mechanical affirmation of the order passed by
the trial Court has resulted in perpetuating the procedural illegality.
In Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, (2005) 4 SCC 370, the
Apex Court elaborately explained the object and scope of Section 195
CrPC/215 BNSS and held that the provision is enacted to safeguard the
sanctity of judicial proceedings and to prevent vexatious or frivolous
prosecutions relating to matters occurring in court proceedings. The Apex
Court held that when the statute prescribes a special procedure for initiating
prosecution in such matters, the same must be strictly followed.
In C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 9 SCC 567, the Apex
Court reiterated that where the law mandates a particular procedure for taking
cognizance of certain offences, such requirement is mandatory and failure to
comply with it renders the entire proceedings without jurisdiction.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8151
9 MCRC-37665-2025
In Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar, (1998) 2 SCC 493, the Apex
Court explained the scope of Section 195 CrPC/215 BNSS and held that
prosecution relating to offences affecting administration of justice must
comply with the statutory requirement of a complaint by the concerned
court, as the provision is intended to protect individuals from unnecessary
criminal prosecution arising out of court proceedings.
In Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC 1206, the Apex Court
held that the bar contained in Section 195 CrPC/215 BNSS is mandatory and
any prosecution launched without complying with the requirements of the
provision is void ab initio.
In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner are
unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16.06.2025
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhind in MJC No.
391/2025, as affirmed by the order dated 29.07.2025 passed by the VII
Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in Criminal Revision No. 70 of 2025, are
hereby set aside. Consequently, the present petition filed under Section 528
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita is allowed. However, considering
the nature of the allegations and the fact that the matter concerns compliance
with judicial directions, the case is remanded back to the learned trial Court
with a direction to proceed afresh in accordance with law, if so advised, and
to follow the procedure prescribed under the applicable statutory provisions
while dealing with the matter. The learned trial Court shall ensure that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8151
10 MCRC-37665-2025
adequate opportunity of hearing is afforded to the petitioner before taking
any action in the matter.
Any consequential directions issued pursuant to the impugned orders,
including the direction for deduction of the fine amount from the salary of
the petitioner and the entry in his service record, shall stand annulled. The
trial Court shall thereafter proceed in the matter strictly in accordance with
law and uninfluenced by any observations made in the impugned orders.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
