[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satyprakash Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 March, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9535
1 MCRC-12464-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 17th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 12464 of 2026
SATYPRAKASH SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prakash Braru - Advocate for the petitioner [P-1].
Shri Brijesh Kumar Tyagi - Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
ORDER
The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 528 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), seeking modification of the order
dated 13.11.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 45020/2024.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had
earlier filed Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 45020/2024 before this
Hon'ble Court. During the course of hearing, this Hon'ble Court, by order
dated 24.04.2024, was pleased to direct the concerned authority, namely the
General Manager, BSNL, Gwalior or any competent officer, to furnish
necessary information and to preserve the Call Detail Records (CDR) along
with tower location details for the relevant period.
3. It is submitted that the matter was thereafter listed on 13.11.2025, on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9535
2 MCRC-12464-2026
which date the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the basis
of information allegedly received from the office of the General Manager,
BSNL, Gwalior, submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the record
pertaining to the relevant period had already been destroyed and, therefore,
the present petition had become infructuous. However, it has subsequently
come to light that the said submission was factually incorrect and misleading.
It is submitted that the mobile numbers in question do not pertain to BSNL,
and therefore, the information allegedly obtained from the office of BSNL,
Gwalior was wholly irrelevant to the controversy involved in the present
matter. In view of the above, it is evident that the statement made before this
Hon'ble Court on behalf of the State was neither accurate nor relevant,
thereby resulting in a misleading submission being placed on record.
4. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had earlier
moved an application under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
seeking requisition of call detail records and tower location data of mobile
numbers 9479727877, 9425111280 and 6261656478. While the call details
and CDR location of mobile number 9479727877 were requisitioned, no
such requisition was made in respect of mobile number 6261656478 and
9425111280 which is material for proper adjudication of the case. In view of
the aforesaid circumstances, it is submitted that the order dated 13.11.2025
has been passed on the basis of incorrect and incomplete information,
resulting in miscarriage of justice. It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present petition and modify the
impugned order dated 13.11.2025 in the interest of justice.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9535
3 MCRC-12464-2026
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits
that the present petition, filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973), is misconceived and not maintainable in view of
the statutory bar contained under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Once a final order has been passed, this Hon'ble Court becomes
functus officio and cannot alter, review, or modify its judgment or final order
except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors, as expressly barred under
Section 362 CrPC.
6. Learned counsel submits that the present petition, though styled as
one seeking "modification," is in substance an attempt to seek review or
recall of a final order, which is impermissible in law. The inherent powers of
this Hon'ble Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (earlier Section 482 CrPC) cannot be invoked to circumvent
the express statutory prohibition contained under Section 362 CrPC. In view
of the settled legal position that a final order cannot be reviewed or altered
by this Hon'ble Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, and considering
that the present petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of law, it is
prayed that the same be dismissed.
7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. It is well settled that in view of the express bar contained under
Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a criminal court cannot alter
or review its judgment or final order once it has been signed, except for the
limited purpose of correcting clerical or arithmetical errors. The inherent
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9535
4 MCRC-12464-2026
powers of this Court, now preserved under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, cannot be exercised in a manner which
would defeat or override an express statutory prohibition.
9. It is evident in the present case that the relief sought by the
petitioner, though ostensibly framed as one for "modification," in substance
amounts to seeking a review or recall of a final order passed on merits. Such
an exercise is expressly prohibited under Section 362 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated
13.11.2025, the appropriate remedy lies elsewhere in accordance with law,
and not by way of the present petition. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note
that no material has been placed on record by the learned counsel for the
petitioner to substantiate the contention that the other two numbers did not
belong to BSNL. On this ground as well, the present petition is devoid of
merit and is liable to be dismissed.
10. In view of the aforesaid legal position, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the present petition is not maintainable.
11. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed as not maintainable.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
