Ramkumar Bhagel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 March, 2026

Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke

Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9427




                                                   1                                 MCRC-54403-2025
             IN     THE        HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                     AT GWALIOR
                                      BEFORE
                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE


                            MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 54403 of 2025
                          RAMKUMAR BHAGEL AND OTHERS
                                      Versus
                     THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
         Appearance:
         Shri Rakshit Gupta - Advocate for the petitioners.
         Shri Samar Ghuraiya - DGA for the respondent No.1/State.
         Shri Ashok Kumar Dohre - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
         --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

               Reserved on : 16/03/2026

               Delivered on : 23/03/2026

         --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

             This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on for
         pronouncement this day, the Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke
         pronounced/passed the following:

                                                       ORDER

This petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashment of the order dated 28.10.2025 passed by the learned XVI District and Additional Sessions Judge, District Gwalior in Sessions Trial No. ST/263/2025, whereby the applications filed by the present petitioners under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge have been rejected.

As per the prosecution story, respondent No. 2/complainant submitted a written complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9427

2 MCRC-54403-2025

Gwalior alleging that the present petitioners induced her to withdraw an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- from her bank account on the pretext that the amount would be deposited in another bank where she would receive a higher rate of interest. It is alleged that believing the petitioners, the complainant withdrew the said amount and handed it over to them. Thereafter, petitioner No. 2 allegedly handed over an FDR purportedly issued by Jana Small Finance Bank, Gwalior to the complainant. Subsequently, when the complainant's son got the said FDR verified through a bank inquiry, it was discovered that no such FDR was issued in the name of the complainant and that the FDR number related to another person. On the basis of the said allegations and pursuant to the

directions issued by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., FIR No. 106/2025 was registered at Police Station University, District Gwalior for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120- B of IPC. After completion of the investigation, the police filed the charge- sheet before the competent court and the case was registered as Sessions Trial No. ST/263/2025. During the course of trial, the present petitioners filed applications under Section 227 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge on the ground that no offence is made out against them. The learned Sessions Court, after hearing the parties, rejected the said applications vide order dated 28.10.2025. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 were not known to each other and there is no material NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9427

3 MCRC-54403-2025 available on record to establish any criminal conspiracy between them. It is further submitted that no call detail records or any other documentary evidence have been produced by the prosecution to establish the alleged conspiracy. It is also contended that the dispute between the parties essentially arises out of a land transaction between the complainant and the brother-in-law of petitioner No. 2 and due to the dispute regarding the said land the present false complaint has been lodged. It is further argued that even if the entire prosecution story is accepted on its face value, the essential ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out against the petitioners and therefore the learned Sessions Court ought to have allowed the applications filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. It is therefore prayed that the impugned order dated 28.10.2025 be set aside and the petitioners be discharged from the case. To bolster his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of R. Nagender Yadav Vs. The State of Telangana and Ors. reported in (2023)2 SCC 195; Md. Ibrahim and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in (2009)8 SCC 751; Sheila Sebastian Vs.Jawaharaj and Ors reported in (2018)7 SCC 581; K.R. Purushottaman Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2005)12 SCC 631; Prabhu Chawla Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in (2016) 16 SCC 30; Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd. and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in 2008 INSC 1460 and the judgments decided by this Court in the matters of Gauri Rahul Takalkar and Ors. Vs. Rahul Dilip Takalkar decided on 05.05.2025 in Misc. Criminal Case No.19202/2024; Nirmala Vs. State of M.P. decided on 29.11.2019 in Misc. NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9427

4 MCRC-54403-2025 Criminal Case No.43023/2019 and in Asha Shivhare and Ors. Vs. Pradeep Shivhare decided on 16.12.2025 in Misc. Criminal Case No.9270/2024.

Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 opposed the petition and submitted that during the course of investigation the investigating agency has collected sufficient material indicating the involvement of the present petitioners in the alleged offence. On the basis of the material so collected, the charge-sheet has rightly been filed before the competent court. It is further submitted that while considering an application for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court is only required to examine whether the material placed on record discloses the existence of a prima facie case against the accused, and the Court is not expected to undertake a detailed appreciation or evaluation of the evidence at that stage. Therefore, according to the respondents, the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Court does not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court.

Learned counsel further submitted that the investigation has revealed that the FDR allegedly handed over to the complainant was not issued in her name and, in fact, pertained to another person, which prima facie reflects the fraudulent conduct attributed to the petitioners. It is also contended that the complainant was persuaded by the petitioners to withdraw a substantial amount of money from her bank account on the assurance that the same would be invested in a bank deposit yielding higher returns. However, the amount was allegedly obtained on false representations. The material NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9427

5 MCRC-54403-2025 collected during investigation, therefore, clearly indicates the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged acts, and for this reason the learned Sessions Court has rightly rejected the applications filed by the petitioners seeking discharge.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the record, it appears that after completion of the investigation, the police have filed a charge-sheet against the present petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC. The learned Sessions Court, after considering the material available on record and hearing the parties, has rejected the discharge applications filed by the petitioners.

In the present case, the material collected during investigation prima facie indicates that the complainant was induced by the petitioners to withdraw an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- on the pretext of receiving higher returns. It is further alleged that a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) was handed over to the complainant, which, upon verification, was found to be forged and not issued in her name.

Such allegations, if taken at their face value, prima facie attract the offence under Section 420 IPC (cheating), as there appears to be inducement coupled with dishonest intention leading to delivery of property. The act of preparing and using a false FDR prima facie attracts Sections 467 and 468 IPC (forgery of valuable security and forgery for the purpose of cheating). Further, the use of such a forged document as genuine brings the case within the ambit of Section 471 IPC. Moreover, the allegations regarding the NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9427

6 MCRC-54403-2025 involvement of more than one accused in inducing the complainant and facilitating the transaction indicate a prima facie case of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC. Thus, from the material available on record, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioners. The contentions raised by the petitioners relate to disputed questions of fact, which can only be adjudicated during trial.

Though this Court is in full agreement with the legal principles and analogy laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court in the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners, the same are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the instant matter, the material collected during investigation, particularly with regard to the alleged inducement, handing over of a forged FDR, and misrepresentation, prima facie discloses the involvement of the petitioners in the commission of the alleged offences. The submissions raised by the petitioners pertain to disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated at this stage and are matters for trial. The learned Sessions Court, while rejecting the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C., has duly considered the material on record and has not committed any illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 28.10.2025 passed by the learned XVI District and Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior does not suffer from any

illegality warranting interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the present petition, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9427

7 MCRC-54403-2025 It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) NEETU JUDGE

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA

2.5.4.20=36b486bb0d381b950e435ec0

SHAS 9e066bc6b58cb947c1474b7dc349a1cf2 7eaa2ce, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR,CID -

7063574, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=e60a9bbfc39e0ee500eaa

HANK de1e0b3b8565cb3a7dc9f5cd048197df0 ff3149ae58, cn=NEETU SHASHANK Date: 2026.03.24 11:53:34 +05'30'

neetu