[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bajari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 March, 2026
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22263
1 CRR-2113-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 17th OF MARCH, 2026
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2113 of 2014
BAJARI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ashok Mishra - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Rajeev Pandey - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Sanjay Pandey - Advocate for the complainant.
ORDER
The report of Registrar (J-II) is received.
2. According to the report, in light of the order dated 04/04/2025
compromise statement of the parties have been recorded on 16/04/2025.
Thereafter, this case is listed today.
3. The statement of applicant-Bajari Lal Yadav was recorded who was
identified by his counsel Shri Ashok Mishra. The statement of complainant -
Babulal Yadav was also recorded who was identified by his counsel Shri
Sanjay Pandey.
4. Learned Registrar (Judicial) has verified and opined that compromise
is voluntarily and genuine.
5. Complainant -Babulal Yadav submitted that he has lodged a report
against accused -Bajari Lal and Brajesh Yadav that they wrote a letter to
defame his granddaughter (natin) and nephew (bhatiji) and used obscene
words against her. Accused Brajesh Yadav has been acquitted by the trial
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22263
2 CRR-2113-2014
Court. Now he has compromise the matter with accused Bajari Lal Yadav.
6. This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C.
to set aside the order dated 27/09/2014 passed by the Second Additional
Sessions Judge, Circuit Court Niwas, District Mandla (MP) in Criminal
Appeal No.14/2010 arising out of the judgment dated 29/01/2010 passed in
Criminal Case No.298/2003 by J.M.F.C., Niwas District Mandola, whereby
revisionist has been convicted under Section 507 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs.200/- with default stipulation.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that during trial, the applicant
Bajari Lal Yadav did not remain in custody. After the judgment of appellate
Court dated 27/09/2014 applicant was sent to the jail. Thereafter suspension
was granted vide order dated 13/11/2014 and bail was verified on
14/11/2014.
8. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that although he
has filed this revision against the judgment including conviction and sentence
both, but he is not pressing this revision against conviction. He is pressing
the revision only for quantum of sentence.
9. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State has no objection on the prayer made
by learned counsel for the applicant.
10. Although the revision is not being pressed against conviction but for the
justice between the parties, this Court perused the record.
11. On perusal of the oral as well as documentary evidence on record and
the statements of Babulal (PW-1), Barelal (PW-2), Sunder Lal (PW-3),
Avlesh (PW-4), Prabodh (PW-5), Bhagota (PW-6), Kunjilal (PW-7), Ashok
Kumar (PW-8), Kamlesh (PW-9) and Mahesh Kumar (PW-10), statement of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22263
3 CRR-2113-2014
accused person and defence witnesses Bhangilal (DW-1) and Hindulal (DW-
2), it is seen that conviction of the applicant under Sections 507 of IPC is well
justified.
12. Accordingly, the revision against conviction is rejected.
13. Considered the arguments on the quantum of punishment. 14. In view
of the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence and the fact that
this appeal is of the year 2014, this Court is of the view that the ends of
justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the
applicant under Sections 507 of IPC is reduced to the period already
undergone by him by enhancing the fine amount from Rs.200/- to Rs.5000/-.
15. The applicant is directed to deposit the balance fine amount as
quantified by this Court before the Trial Court within a period of 30 days
from today. Fine amount, if any, already deposited shall be adjusted.
16. However, it is clarified that if fine amount as quantified by this Court is
not deposited within aforesaid period, the applicant would surrender himself
to serve out the jail sentence as awarded by the learned Trial Court.
17. Learned Trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.
18. This criminal revision is disposed of to the extent indicated herein
above.
19. Let record of trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent to the
Court concerned for information and necessary action.
20. Certified copy as per rules.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22263
4 CRR-2113-2014
mc
