[Cites 21, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kesuram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7963
1 CRR-4606-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4606 of 2025
DAYARAM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vikas Rathi - learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rajendra Singh Suryavanshi - Govt. Advocate for the respondent
No.1/State.
Shri Yash Pal Rathore, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5497 of 2025
KESURAM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Yash Pal Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rajendra Singh Suryavanshi, learned GA for the respondent/State.
HEARD ON : 21.01.2026
POSTED ON : 24.03.2026
ORDER
Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in these
criminal revisions, therefore, these criminal revisions were analogously heard
and are being disposed off by this common order.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7963
2 CRR-4606-2025
02. Both the criminal revision petitions under Section 438 r/w 442 of
the BNSS, 2023 arises from the order dated 07.08.2025 in Special ST
No.94/2024 arising out of Crime No.555/2023 registered at Police Station
Raipuria, District Jhabua by the A.S.J. Petlawad, District Jhabua whereby the
charges under Section 417 of the IPC have been framed against Kesuram S/o
Mayaram Seenam (revision petitioner in CRR No.5497/2025 & respondent
in CRR No.4606/2025).
03. Criminal Revision No.5497/2025 has been preferred for setting
aside the charges framed against the revision petitioner whereas the Criminal
Revision No.4606/2025 has been preferred by the complainant/victim
Dayaram for addition of the charges under Section 420 r/w 34, 409 of the
IPC and Section 6(1) of the M.P. Nikshepakon ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan
Adhiniyam, 2000.
04. The facts of the case in brief are that Crime No.555/2023
was registered at Police Station Raipuria, District Jhabua under Section 420
r/w 34 of the IPC against the revision petitioner Kesuram along with Ganpat
on the complaint of Dayaram Gawali to the effect that both the accused
persons represented themselves as the agent of USK India Limited, a
company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 with Corporate
Identification No.U70101MP2009PLC022207 and solicited him and his wife
to make an investment in the company with assurance of high returns and
issued certificate of deposits. In completion of the term of deposit mentioned
in the certificates, both the accused persons contacted them and collected the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7963
3 CRR-4606-2025
certificates and they kept the Xerox with them but never returned the
maturity amount. On completion of investigation, a final report was
submitted under Section 420 r/w 34, 409 of the IPC and Section 6(1) of the
M.P. Nikshepakon ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000 against
Ganpat, Kesuram, Sannay and Pappu and mentioning Umeshsingh and
Shivramsingh as absconding.
05. The trial Court framed the charges under Section 417, 420
alternatively 420 r/w 34, 409 of the IPC and Section 6(1) of the M.P.
Nikshepakon ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000 against Ganpat,
Pappu and Sanjay but charges under Section 417 of the IPC were framed
against Kesuram. The reasons for not framing the charges under the rest of
the section were mentioned that the F.I.R. discloses the ingredients of
cheating in connection with Kesuram & only pamphlets of the company has
been seized from Kesuram whereas Ganpat has disclosed his Agent Code
No. 2923 and the same agency code has been found in the certificate
provided by Dayaram.
06. Challenging the order of framing of charges, the Criminal Revision
No.5497/2025 has been preferred on the ground that nothing has been seized
from the revision petitioner to prove that the appellant was the agent of the
company. He has been implicated on the basis of the memo of co-accused
persons which is not admissible in the evidence. Prima facie no offence
under Section 417 of the IPC is made out. In support of his revision petition,
counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the cases of State of Haryana &
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7963
4 CRR-4606-2025
others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & others AIR 1992 SC 604, M.N. Ojha vs. Alok
Kumar Srvastav reported in (2009) 9 SCC 682 and Neelu Chopra and
another vs. Bharti reported in (2009) 10 SCC 184.
07. The Criminal Revision No.4606/2025 has been preferred on the
ground that the Police submitted the final report disclosing the involvement
of all the accused persons in the same manner. The case of Kesuram is not
separable from the case of Ganpat.
08. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State as well as the
counsel for the respondent No.2 have opposed the revision petitions and
prayed for its dismissal.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
09. Before dealing with the rival contentions, it is appropriate to refer
to 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7963
5 CRR-4606-2025
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7963
6 CRR-4606-2025
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."
10. 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:
(i) The Judge while considering the
question of framing the charges under
Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted power
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7963
7 CRR-4606-2025
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7963
8 CRR-4606-2025
the accused might have committed offence, it
can frame the charge, though for conviction
the conclusion is required to be proved
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7963
9 CRR-4606-2025
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."
11. The position of law enunciated in the said decisions reveals that
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.
12. 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:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7963
10 CRR-4606-2025
"At the stage of framing of the charge and /or
considering the discharge application, the
mini trial is not permissible."
13. 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 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."
14. Now come to the facts of this case.
15. Perused the final report submitted under Section 173 of the
Cr.P.C., and Column No. 10 mentions the details of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7963
11 CRR-4606-2025
properties/articles/documents recovered or seized during the investigation
and relied upon. Documents are categorized under 14 heads. The FIR was
lodged by Dayaram, and he specifically mentioned the name of Kesuram,
who had contacted him while representing himself as an agent of USK India
Limited. On 13.09.2023, certificates were seized from Dayaram, which are
stated to have been issued in his as well as his wife's name, in respect of the
amount paid to Kesuram along with Ganpat. In statements recorded under
Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., Dayaram, along with his wife Rambhabai,
disclosed the name of Kesuram as the person working on behalf of USK
India Limited and to whom they had deposited the amount.
16. Apart from Dayaram and his wife, the statement of Nathulal s/o
Shankarlal, recorded on 13.08.2024, has levelled the same allegations against
Kesuram. The order of the trial Court in distinguishing the case of Kesuram
from the case of Ganpat is based on the finding that there is no contract of
agency. The trial Court ignored the legal position that the authority of an
agent may be express or implied, as per Section 186 of the Indian Contract
Act, 1872.
17. Considering the material collected and filed along with the final
report submitted under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, and the statements
of Dayaram, Rambhabai, and Nathulal, there is no merit in Criminal
Revision No. 5497/2025 and it is hereby dismissed.
18. Criminal Revision No. 4606/2025 filed by Dayaram is allowed, as
there is no justification to distinguish his case from that of Ganpat. The trial
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7963
12 CRR-4606-2025
Court is directed to reconsider the framing of additional charges against
Kesuram and pass a fresh order.
19. Record of the courts below be remitted back along with a copy of
this order for information and compliance.
Let a copy of this order be placed in connected case also.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
VS
