Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mazhar Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 July, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20443
1 Cr.R. No.5582/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
CRIMINAL REVISION No.5582 of 2024
MAZHAR KHAN S/O ISRAIL KHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Mr. Ashutosh Surana - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ambuj Patel - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
_________________________________________________________
Reserved on : 22/07/2026
Post on : 27/07/2026
_____________________________________________________________
ORDER
1. The present Criminal Revision has been preferred under Section 397
read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as “Cr.P.C.”). The petitioner/accused has invoked the revisional
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:50:09
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20443
2 Cr.R. No.5582/2024
jurisdiction of this Court being aggrieved by the impugned order dated
02.09.2024.
2. The impugned order has been passed by the Seventh Additional Session’s
Judge, Ratlam (M.P.) in S.T. Case No.262/15. By way of the said order, the
Trial Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 227
of the Cr.P.C. seeking discharge, and has proceeded to frame charges against
him. The charges framed against the petitioner are for the alleged commission of
offences punishable under Sections 13(1) and 17 of the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter “UAPA”), along with Sections 121A, 123,
and 124A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter “IPC“). It is pertinent to mention
at the outset that this Court is exercising its limited revisional jurisdiction and
not its appellate jurisdiction.
FACTS IN BRIEF
3. The factual matrix, as discernible from the record and strictly necessary for
the adjudication of the present revision, is that the petitioner has been implicated
in Crime No.170/2015 registered at Police Station Industrial Area, Ratlam,
Madhya Pradesh. According to the prosecution, on 17.04.2015, the Station
House Officer of Police Station Manakchowk visited the residence of one Imran
Khan situated at 230, Mohan Nagar, Ratlam, for the seizure of certain articles in
connection with another crime (Crime No. 213/2015). During the search, the
police allegedly recovered certain incriminating booklets.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:50:09
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20443
3 Cr.R. No.5582/2024
4. The prosecution asserts that the contents of these booklets amounted to an
attempt to wage war against the State. Consequently, a Dehati Nalsi was
recorded, which culminated in the registration of the present FIR bearing Crime
No. 170/2015. Upon completion of the investigation, the police filed a final
report (Challan) under Section 173 of the CrPC against the petitioner and other
co-accused before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, and the matter was
subsequently committed to the Sessions Court.
5. Initially, the Trial Court framed charges vide order dated 02.04.2016. This
order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in CRR/567/2016. Vide
order dated 24.09.2019, this Court remanded the matter back to the Trial Court
with a specific direction to consider the petitioner’s objection regarding the non-
compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 6 of the National
Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (hereinafter “NIA Act“).
6. Following the remand, the petitioner filed an application under Section 227
of the CrPC on 24.10.2019 seeking discharge. During its pendency, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court passed an interim order dated 11.05.2022 in W.P.(Civil)
682/2021 (S.G. Vombatkere Vs. Union of India) regarding Section 124A of
the IPC. Relying on this, the petitioner filed another application on 10.11.2022.
The Trial Court, vide the impugned order dated 02.09.2024, rejected the
discharge application, leading to the present revision.
CONTENTIONS OF THE REVISIONIST
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:50:09
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20443
4 Cr.R. No.5582/2024
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the Trial
Court erred in law and on facts by rejecting the discharge application. It was
contended that the Trial Court ought to have first decided the application dated
10.11.2022 seeking compliance with the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s interim
directions in S.G. Vombatkere Vs. Union of India, W.P.(Civil) 682/2021
rather than adjudicating the discharge application directly.
8. It was specifically urged that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held
that “All pending trials, appeals and proceedings with respect to the charge
framed under Section 124A of IPC be kept in abeyance. Adjudication with other
sections, if any, could proceed if the Courts are of the opinion that no prejudice
would be caused to the accused”. Relying on this, the petitioner argued that the
Trial Court was not competent to adjudicate or frame charges under Section
124A of the IPC.
9. The petitioner further contended that the Trial Court failed to comply with
the directions issued by this Court on 24.09.2019 in CRR/567/2016. It was
submitted that the Trial Court evaded deciding the specific objection regarding
the non-compliance of Section 6 of the NIA Act, 2008, by erroneously holding
that such an objection is a matter to be adjudicated at the stage of evidence.
10. The revisionist argued that the alleged offences form part of the Schedule
to the NIA Act, 2008. As per the statutory mandate, only the Central
Government is authorized to determine whether a scheduled offence is made
out, which dictates whether the NIA or the State Police should investigate. It
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:50:09
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20443
5 Cr.R. No.5582/2024
was submitted that in the absence of a single document showing compliance
with Section 6 of the NIA Act, cognizance could not have been taken.
11. The petitioner assailed the charges under the UAPA, asserting that the
allegations do not satisfy the ingredients of Sections 13 (1) and 17. An objection
regarding sanction was also raised. It was submitted that mandatory sanction
under Section 45 (2) of the UAPA read with the 2008 Rules was not validly
obtained. The petitioner argued that the sanction order does not reveal that the
“Authority” was validly appointed by the Central Government, nor does it
indicate any proper review of the evidence. It was further alleged that the time
limits prescribed under Rules 3 and 4 were violated, making the sanction a
nullity.
12. Regarding the IPC charges, the petitioner relied on the judgment in State
(NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru (AIR 2005 SC 3820),
quoting:
“The Court must be cautious in adopting an approach
which has the effect of bringing within the fold of Section 121
all acts of lawless and violent acts resulting in destruction of
public properties etc., and all acts of violent resistance to the
armed personnel to achieve certain political objectives. The
moment it is found that the object sought to be attained is of
general public nature or has a political hue, the offensive
violent acts targeted against armed forces and public officials
should not be branded as acts of waging war. The expression
‘waging war’ should not be stretched too far to hold that all
the acts of disrupting public order and peace irrespective of
their magnitude and repercussions could be reckoned as actsSignature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:50:09
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:204436 Cr.R. No.5582/2024
of waging war against the Government. A balanced and
realistic approach is called for in construing the expression
‘waging war’ irrespective of how it was viewed in the long long
past.”
13. It was argued that since only one pistol and cartridges were
allegedly recovered from another co-accused (Anwar), the ingredients of
waging war or concealing a design to wage war (Sections 121A and 123
IPC) are entirely absent against the present petitioner. Lastly, the
petitioner submitted that the seized booklets, which form the primary
basis of the prosecution, are merely historical documents containing
stories about the duties of Muslims in the pre-independence era. It was
emphasized that these are public documents, easily available on the
internet, and not banned by the Government, thereby negating the charge
under Section 124-A of the IPC.
CONTENTIONS OF THE STATE / RESPONDENT
14. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the State vehemently
opposed the Criminal Revision and supported the impugned order dated
02.09.2024. The State contended that at the stage of framing of charges
under Section 227/228 of the Cr.P.C., the Trial Court is only required to
evaluate the material on record to ascertain whether a prima facie case is
made out against the accused. It was submitted that a mini-trial or
meticulous examination of evidence is not permissible at this stage.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:50:09
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20443
7 Cr.R. No.5582/2024
15. The respondent further submitted that the seizure of the
incriminating booklets, read alongside the overall investigation,
constitutes sufficient prima facie material to frame charges under the
UAPA and the IPC. The State defended the Trial Court’s decision to
defer the procedural objections regarding sanction and the NIA Act to
the stage of trial, arguing that these are mixed questions of law and fact
requiring evidence.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
16. Heard the parties and perused the record available.
17. Before adverting to the merits of the rival contentions, it is
imperative to outline the contours of the revisional jurisdiction under
Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC. The jurisdiction vested
in this Court is inherently supervisory in nature, intended to correct
manifest errors of law, patent illegalities, or jurisdictional overreach
committed by Subordinate Courts.
18. The foremost challenge raised by the petitioner is predicated on the
interim order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.G.
Vombatkere(Supra). A careful reading of the order reveals the specific
rider/caveat: “Adjudication with other sections, if any, could proceed if
the Courts are of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the
accused”.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:50:09
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20443
8 Cr.R. No.5582/2024
19. The Trial Court, in the present case, was faced with a composite
charge-sheet involving severe offences under the UAPA alongside
Sections 121A and 123 of the IPC, independent of Section 124A of the
IPC. The framing of charges under multiple statutes cannot be entirely
stalled merely because one of the sections (Section 124A) has been kept
in abeyance by the Apex Court. The Trial Court has not committed any
patent illegality in proceeding to adjudicate the application for discharge
concerning the other distinct and grave offences.
20. As regards the petitioner’s contention that the Trial Court failed to
strictly comply with the remand order dated 24.09.2019 regarding the
non-compliance of Section 6 of the NIA Act, this Court finds that the
Trial Court has duly considered the objection. The Trial Court’s
conclusion that the procedural compliance or non-compliance of the
NIA Act requires the adducing of evidence is a plausible judicial view at
the charge-framing stage.
21. At the stage of Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., the Court is only
required to scan the evidence to find out whether sufficient grounds exist
for proceeding against the accused. The complex details regarding
whether the Central Government was appropriately informed within the
prescribed timeline, or whether the State Police usurped jurisdiction, are
matters that require factual foundational proof during the trial.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:50:09
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20443
9 Cr.R. No.5582/2024
22. Similarly, the arguments advanced by the petitioner challenging the
validity of the sanction granted under Section 45(2) of the UAPA cannot
be conclusively determined at this threshold stage. Whether the
appointed “Authority” applied its mind independently or whether the
internal time-limits under the 2008 Rules were strictly adhered to, are
inherently questions of fact that the prosecution must prove during the
trial. Rejecting a discharge application on this ground does not amount
to a jurisdictional error.
23. The petitioner heavily relied upon the Supreme Court’s verdict in
Navjot Sandhu (Supra) to argue that the recovery of mere booklets or a
single pistol from a co-accused does not amount to “waging war.” While
the legal principles elucidated in the said judgment are undisputed, their
application is contextual and fact-dependent.
24. The exact nature of the booklets, their intended audience, their
potential to incite violence, and their connection to the larger conspiracy
alleged by the prosecution, cannot be evaluated through a mini-trial in
revisional proceedings. The prosecution’s claim that the booklets contain
material attempting to wage war requires a full-fledged trial for
conclusive determination. The petitioner’s defense that they are merely
“historical documents” is a matter of defense evidence.
25. The statutory framework of Sections 13 and 17 of the UAPA, and
Sections 121A and 123 of the IPC, involves complex elements of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:50:09
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20443
10 Cr.R.
No.5582/2024
conspiracy, intention, and unlawful activity. The threshold to frame a
charge is merely a grave suspicion that the accused has committed the
offence. Applying the principles to the material on record, it cannot be
said that the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose any
offence whatsoever.
26. The reliance placed on S.G. Vombatkere (Supra) does not grant a
blanket immunity from prosecution for other connected offences under
the UAPA or the IPC. The Trial Court remains bound by the Supreme
Court’s directive to keep the trial concerning Section 124A IPC in
abeyance, but this does not vitiate the impugned order framing charges
for the remaining offences.
27. In light of the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, this Court
finds that the impugned order dated 02.09.2024 does not suffer from any
perversity, patent illegality, or jurisdictional error. The Learned Trial
Court has rightly evaluated the material on record to form a prima facie
opinion for framing charges. There is no manifest error apparent on the
record that has resulted in a gross miscarriage of justice requiring the
interference of this Court.
28. Consequently, the present Criminal Revision is devoid of merits
and is hereby dismissed. The impugned order dated 02.09.2024 passed
by the Seventh Additional Session’s Judge, Ratlam in S.T. Case
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:50:09
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20443
11 Cr.R.
No.5582/2024
No.262/15 is affirmed. The Trial Court shall proceed with the trial in
accordance with the law, keeping in mind the interim directions of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.G. Vombatkere Vs. Union of India
(Supra) specifically concerning the charge under Section 124A of the
IPC.
No order as to costs.
(Jai Kumar Pillai)
Judge
Aiyer*PS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:50:09
