Madhya Pradesh High Court
Surendra Pratap Singh vs Yadvendra Singh on 15 January, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3015
1 MCRC-35398-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 15th OF JANUARY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 35398 of 2024
SURENDRA PRATAP SINGH
Versus
YADVENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jaideep Kaurav - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri D.R. Vishwakarma - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri D.K. Tripathi - Advocate for the respondent No.1/complainant.
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated
against him as well as the orders dated 23.09.2017 passed by the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Tikamgarh in Criminal Case (RCT No. 102411/2017)
No.2140/2017 and 22.12.2017 passed by the First Additional Sessions
Judge, Tikamgarh in Criminal Revision No. 218/2017, in the said
proceedings.
2. The facts leading to the case are that the respondent No.1 had filed
an application/complaint under Section 156(3) read with Section 190 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner and five other persons
alleging therein that in a group/mass marriage (Samuhik Vivah) organized
by the public organization, the petitioner being a public leader had also
participated as one of the organizers. The group marriage ceremony was
organized just to facilitate the boys and girls to get their better half (spouse)
as per their choice. The said marriage was organized without any dowry and
all the expenses of the group marriage were borne by the organizers.
3. It is alleged that in the said marriage ceremony, a girl (hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 1/23/2025
11:44:07 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3015
2 MCRC-35398-2024
referred to as ‘X’) also participated and got married to one Ramesh Adivasi,
son of Prabhu Adivasi on 25.04.2012. It is alleged that at the time of
marriage the said girl was a minor and aged about 15 years and 11 months
and as such it was an offence under the provisions of Child Marriage
Prohibition Act, 2006 (For brevity ‘Act, 2006’).
4. After examining the complainant and considering the evidence of
the witnesses adduced, the trial court vide order dated 11.11.2013 (Annexure
A/3) rejected the complaint observing that the necessary ingredients for
constituting the offence under Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Act, 2006 are not
available in the case and therefore it would not be proper to take cognizance
of the complaint.
5. The said order of the trial court was assailed by the complainant in
a revision vide Criminal Revision No. 31/2014. The Revisional Court, vide
order dated 14.07.2015 (Annexure A/4) allowed the revision and set aside
the order dated 11.11.2013 passed by the trial court and remitted the matter
to the Magistrate directing that a fresh order be passed after hearing the
complainant. In pursuance to the said order, the Magistrate heard the
complainant and passed a fresh order on 23.09.2017 (Annexure A/5) taking
cognizance of the complaint and observed that considering the evidence
produced by the prosecution, prima facie offence under Sections 10 and 11
of the Act, 2006 is made out against the accused and as such he directed
registration of case against them, however, at the same time, finding no
evidence and direct participation in the alleged marriage, the Magistrate
rejected the complaint against Shri Prabhat Jha, who was the then State
President of Bhartiya Janta Party.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from perusal
of the order of Magistrate, it is evidently clear that he has not recorded any
finding as to how and in what manner the present petitioner has committed a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 1/23/2025
11:44:07 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3015
3 MCRC-35398-2024
crime under the provisions of Act, 2006 and was directly involved in
solemnizing the marriage of ‘X’.
7. The Revision preferred by the petitioner and other accused persons,
against whom the offence was directed to be registered, was rejected by the
Revisional Court by order dated 22.12.2017 (Annexure A/6) affirming the
order of Judicial Magistrate First Class taking cognizance in the matter.
8. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
being aggrieved by the order of Magistrate taking cognizance of the
complaint, co-accused had preferred petitions before the High Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C i.e. MCRC Nos. 11541/2018, 2143/2018 and 1716/2018
seeking quashing of the order dated 23.09.2017 passed by the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Tikamgarh taking cognizance of the complaint and
directing issuance of summons to the accused persons. The said petitions
were decided and allowed by the High Court by a common order dated
21.08.2023 (Annexure A/7) setting aside the order dated 23.09.2017. He has
therefore submitted that this petition may also be allowed in view of the
order passed in the said petitions and the complaint filed against the
petitioner be also quashed.
9. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as the State have
opposed the petition contending that nothing wrong has been committed by
the court below directing registration of offence and issuance of summons
against the petitioner on the ground that on the basis of material available, it
is clear that the ‘X’ was a minor when her marriage was solemnized in a
group marriage ceremony in which petitioner was also one of the organizers.
10. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for
the parties and carefully perused the record. However, from perusal of the
statement of the witnesses and also the complainant, it is evidently clear that
nobody has stated before the court that even after knowing the fact that the
girl was a minor on the date of marriage, the petitioner had compelled her to
enter into the marriage. It is also not established from the material available
on record that even after knowing that the said marriage was illegal, the
petitioner did not restrain the organizers or other persons from performing
the marriage of ‘X’. Thus, it is clear that all these facts, which constitute the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 1/23/2025
11:44:07 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3015
4 MCRC-35398-2024
offence under the provisions of the Act, 2006, were not in the knowledge of
the petitioner and even otherwise, it has not come in the statement of any of
the witnesses that in the alleged group marriage ceremony the petitioner had
played any direct or active role and even after knowing about all such
material aspects, he got himself involved in the said marriage ceremony. It is
also important to note here that at the relevant point of time nobody had
disclosed the fact about the age of the girl and even her family members or
other persons related to her had not brought this fact to the notice of the
organizers or to the petitioner.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that the
petitioner cannot be made an accused and the prosecution cannot be initiated
against him, especially under the circumstance when this Court in respect of
the same incident entertained the petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
by the co-accused facing same type of the allegations and allowed the same
relying upon number of decisions of the Supreme Court and the order passed
by this Court has not been set aside so far. Thus, it is not proper to take a
different view than that of the view taken in the cases of similarly situated
persons in MCRC Nos. 11541/2018, 2143/2018 and 1716/2018. The relevant
paragraphs of the order dated 21.08.2023 passed in the said MCRCs are
reproduced as under:-
“4. However, it is contended by counsel for the
applicants that neither in the complaint nor in
the statement of witnesses recorded by the
court below it has come that the applicants
were aware of the fact that “X” was a child and
marriage which was being performed by
Ramesh with her was a child marriage. In
absence of such material or not knowledge
about the age of the girl “X”, offence is not
made out against the present applicants. It is
also contended that the complainant has stated
that Mithala has informed him about the factSignature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 1/23/2025
11:44:07 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30155 MCRC-35398-2024
that it was a child marriage but in the statement
of Mithala even she has not disclosed this fact
that she was also aware of the fact about age of
girl “X”. Counsel for the applicants have
submitted that in absence of specific averment
about the knowledge of age of girl “X” no
offence is made out and therefore, they have
claimed that the charge framed against them is
liable to be quashed.
5. Shri Aakash Kaushal appearing for the
respondent no.1/complainant submits that
under the facts and circumstances of the case at
this stage entertaining this petition under
section 482 of Cr.P.C, this Court cannot
examine statement of the witnesses and the
same cannot be made basis for quashing FIR.
He submits that court has taken cognizance of a
complaint only and as such this is not a proper
stage when 482 petition can be entertained. He
submits that there is sufficient material
produced by the complainant and as such
cognizance was rightly taken by the court. He
submits that revisional court has considered
this aspect and found that the offence
cognizance has rightly been taken against the
present applicants because there is sufficient
material indicating that the applicants
participated in the said public function and was
one of the organizers as such he submits that
there is nothing in the petition. According to
him, the petition deserve to be dismissed. He
relied upon on judgment of the Supreme Court
passed in case of Kaptan Singh Vs. The StateSignature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 1/23/2025
11:44:07 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30156 MCRC-35398-2024
of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Criminal Appeal
No.787 of 2021, decided on 13.08.2021).
6. Heard the submission made by learned
counsel for the parties and also perused the
record, the application has been filed under
section 156(3) of Cr.P.C read with section 190
of Cr.P.C before the JMFC mentioning therein
that the Superintendent of Police and Collector
Tikamgarh have been apprised about the
incident which took place and to initiate
proceeding against the persons who are
nonapplicants in the said complaint, but
nothing has been done. Hence, the complainant
approached the Court by moving appropriate
application. The complainant was the then
Member of the Legislative Assembly alleging
in the complaint that the applicant being a
public representative, he is drawing attention
of this Court towards the incident which took
place and offence committed by the non-
applicants and as such offence be registered
against them. It is alleged that “X” was minor
girl below 16 years of age. He in a public
function organized for solemnizing the
marriages. The marriage of “X” was also been
solemnized, who was about 15 years, 11
months and 14 days on 25.04.2012 on the date
when this function was arranged and “X” was
married with one Ramesh Adhiwasi. The
present applicant was one of the organizers and
his name was printed in the invitation card and
as such he has committed an offence under the
provisions of Act of 2006. As per theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 1/23/2025
11:44:07 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30157 MCRC-35398-2024
complaint, it is averred that Ramesh was
already married with one Mithala and she has
informed the complainant orally that her 1st
marriage still exists, she has asked for help to
restrict her husband for carrying out 2nd
marriage and according to her she had already
approached the Superintendent of Police and
Collector, but nobody helped her and therefore,
the complaint was made initiating action
against the erring persons, who are non-
applicants according to the complainant.
7. The statement of complainant and other
witnesses recorded by the JMFC and thereafter
an order has been passed on 11.11.2013. The
complaint was rejected by the Court after
considering all existing material on record and
found that on the basis of said material it is
difficult to determine that the present
applicants were aware of the fact that on the
date of solemnizing marriage of “X”, she was
minor and even after knowing this fact that she
come within definition of child as per
provisions of section 2(a) Act of 2006 and
therefore, they cannot be held guilty of any
offence as such prima facie no ground is
available to proceed against the present
applicants under section 9, 10, 11 of Act of
2006, the complaint was therefore closed. The
revision preferred before the Additional
Session Judge and vide order dated 14.07.2015
the Revisional Court set aside the order passed
by the JMFC on 11.11.2013and matter was
remanded back directing that case be decidedSignature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 1/23/2025
11:44:07 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30158 MCRC-35398-2024
again after giving opportunity of hearing to the
complainant. Thereafter the complainant was
heard and JMFC, Tikamgarh vide order dated
23.09.2017 passed in Criminal Case
No.2140/2017 come to the conclusion that
prima facie there is sufficient material
available on record to proceed against the
present applicants under section 10, 11 of Act
of 2006 and as such issued summons to the
present applicants.
8. The said order of issuance of summon was
assailed by filing the revision and that revision
was decided vide order dated 22.12.2017by the
Revisional Court dismissing the revision
upholding the order passed by the JMFC,
initiating proceeding under section 10, 11 of
Act of 2006. On 14.02.2018, the Court
entertained the application (M.Cr.C No.2143 of
2018) and stayed the further proceeding of
complaint case. There are other connected
applications filed by other accused persons and
all those applications are connected and
therefore analogously heard. Those petitions
are M.Cr.C No. 11541 of 2018 and M.Cr.C
No. 1716 of 2018. In all the petitions ground of
challenge are similar and identical.
9. Shri K.C Ghildiyal and Sanjay K Agrawal
appearing for the present applicants have
submitted that so far as section 10 of Act of
2006 is concerned, no case is made out against
the present applicants of Section 10, but
applicants can be charged at the most under
section 11 of Act of 2006 because they wereSignature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 1/23/2025
11:44:07 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30159 MCRC-35398-2024
present at the time of function in which
marriage of “X” was solemnized but counsel
for applicants submits that if contents of
complaint and statement of witnesses recorded
in support of the complaint are considered as it
is and treated to be true at their face value, even
then the offence of section 10, 11 of Act of
2006 is not made out against the present
applicants. To resolve the controversy involved
in the case to answer the ground raised by the
counsel for the applicants and requirement for
registration of offence it is apt to reproduce
section 10, 11 of Act of 2006 as under:-
“10. Punishment for solemnising a
child marriage.– Whoever
performs, conducts, directs or abets
any child marriage shall be
punishable with rigorous
imprisonment which may extend to
two years and shall be liable to fine
which may extend to one lakh
rupees unless he proves that he had
reasons to believe that the marriage
was not a child marriage.
11. Punishment for promoting or
permitting solemnisation of child
marriages.–(1) Where a child
contracts a child marriage, any
person having charge of the child,
whether as parent or guardian or
any other person or in any other
capacity, lawful or unlawful,Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 1/23/2025
11:44:07 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:301510 MCRC-35398-2024
including any member of an
organisation or association of
persons who does any act to
promote the marriage or permits it
to be solemnised, or negligently
fails to prevent it from being
solemnised, including attending or
participating in a child marriage,
shall be punishable with rigorous
imprisonment which may extend to
two years and shall also be liable to
fine which may extend up to one
lakh rupees:
Provided that no woman shall be
punishable with imprisonment.
(2) For the purposes of this section,
it shall be presumed, unless and
until the contrary is proved, that
where a minor child has contracted
a marriage, the person having
charge of such minor child has
negligently failed to prevent the
marriage from being solemnised.”
10. I have perused the complaint and also
examine the averment made therein. I find
substance in the submissions made by the
counsel for the parties that in the whole
complaint nowhere it is pointed out that the
applicants were aware of this fact that girl “X”
was a child and was below 16 years of age. The
statement of witnesses recorded have also been
perused and even in the statement of the
complainant, he has not stated that the present
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 1/23/2025
11:44:07 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3015
11 MCRC-35398-2024
applicant was aware of the fact that girl “X”
was minor and was a child and even then the
applicant did not stop the function of marriage
of “X”. According to the complainant, he
gathered this information from lady Mithala
claiming herself to be wife of Ramesh with
whom “X” was being married but in the
statement of Mithala she has not stated that the
present applicants were aware of thefact that
“X” was minor and was below 18 years of age.
In the statement of Mithala she has only tried
to stop the function of marriage of her husband
Ramesh because he was already married.
Therefore, she was moving from pillar to post
to somehow stop her husband performing 2nd
marriage. In her statement, she has not narrated
this fact that applicant was ever informed about
the fact that girl “X” was a child and below 18
years of age. The statement of other witnesses
namely Ramdas Kushwaha and Rajendra Singh
have also recorded but nobody has stated that
present applicants were aware of the fact that
“X” was a child and below 18 years of age and
this fact was very much in knowledge of
present applicants. Although they have
acknowledged the presence of present
applicant in the said function, but as contended
by counsel for the applicants that in absence of
knowledge of the fact that whether the girl “X”
was a child and even though the present
applicant participated in the said function and
not opposed the same, offence of section 11 is
not made out.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 1/23/2025
11:44:07 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3015
12 MCRC-35398-2024
11. In my opinion that there is substance in the
submission made by counsel for the applicants
because section 11 of Act of 2006 starts with
situation where a child contract a child
marriage meaning thereby if a person who has
to be made an accused under section 11 of Act
of 2006 must have knowledge that it is a child
marriage but in absence of said particulars of
fact, the basic requirement and ingredient of
section 11 is not made out.
12. However, Shri Akash Kaushal appearing
for the complainant submits that in a petition
under section 482 of Cr.P.C the court cannot
examine and scrutinize the statement of the
witnesses and cannot quash the FIR after
considering the statement of the witnesses.
However his submission is misconceived for
the reason that statement of witnesses are not
being appreciated for the purpose that the
petitioner is not at fault but it is being
considered to see whether proper ingredients to
constitute the offence under which petitioner is
being charged are available or not. The law laid
down by the Supreme Court and yard stick for
quashing the FIR are determined in case of
State of Haryana & ors Vs. Bhajan Lal & ors
reported in (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335. The
Supreme Court has formulated guidelines as to
under what circumstances FIR can be quashed
exercising power provided under section 482
of Cr.P.C and Article 226 of Constitution of
India as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 1/23/2025
11:44:07 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3015
13 MCRC-35398-2024
“102. In the backdrop of the
interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code
under Chapter XIV and of the
principles of law enunciated by this
Court in a series of decisions
relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article
226 or the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code which we
have extracted and reproduced
above, we give the following
categories of cases by way of
illustration wherein such power
could be exercised either to prevent
abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of
justice, though it may not be
possible to lay down any precise,
clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to
give an exhaustive list of myriad
kinds of cases wherein such power
should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in
the first information report or the
complaint, even if they are taken at
their face value and accepted in
their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out
a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 1/23/2025
11:44:07 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:301514 MCRC-35398-2024
information report and other
materials, if any, accompanying the
FIR do not disclose a cognizable
offence, justifying an investigation
by police officers under Section
156(1) of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the
purview of Section 155(2) of the
Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted
allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence
collected in support of the same do
not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against
the accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR
do not constitute a cognizable
offence but constitute only a non-
cognizable offence, no
investigation is permitted by a
police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in
the FIR or complaint are so absurd
and inherently improbable on the
basis of which no prudent person
can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal
bar engrafted in any of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 1/23/2025
11:44:07 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3015
15 MCRC-35398-2024
provisions of the Code or the Act
concerned (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or
the Act concerned, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance
of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide
and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance on the accused and with
a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge.”
In view of the guidelines no.1 and 2
formulated by the Supreme Court in case of
Bhajanlal (supra) the FIR or complaint can be
quashed.
13. In view of the above, it is clear that the FIR
cannot be quashed on the basis of fact if the
contents of the same are treated to be proved at
their face value and offence even though is not
made out because of insufficient material the
same cannot be quashed.
14. Here in this case, from the contents of
complaint and on the basis of statement of
witnesses, it is clear that the present applicants
were not aware and had no knowledge about
the fact that the child marriage is being
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 1/23/2025
11:44:07 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3015
16 MCRC-35398-2024
performed. The JMFC at the first occasion
dismissed the complaint on the ground that no
ingredients of section 10, 11 are available and
there was no material indicating that the
applicant had any knowledge about the fact that
“X” was a child and below 18 years of age and
therefore, the complaint was dismissed but
Revisional Court has considered the fact that
Mithala, first wife of Ramesh who entered into
the marriage with “X”, has informed
everybody about conducting of 2nd marriage
by Ramesh but nobody took cognizance of the
same and therefore the petitioner and other
accused person cannot be given clean chit.
However, the Revisional Court has also
observed that on the basis of physic of “X”, it
can be presumed that she was a child and
therefore rejected the order of the court below.
From perusal of the whole order of the
Revisional Court no where it is observed and
took note of the fact that the applicants and
other persons, who were present and was said
to be organizers were aware of the fact that “X”
was child and as such requirement and
ingredient of section 11 is not available and as
such applicants cannot be made accused and
proceeding of section 10, 11 of Act of 2006
cannot be initiated.
15. The Supreme Court in case of Pepsi Foods
Ltd. & anr Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate &
ors reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749 has
considered the scope of section 482 of Cr.P.C
and observed that it has ample power to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 1/23/2025
11:44:07 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3015
17 MCRC-35398-2024
prevent abuse of process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The
Supreme Court also in case of Bhajan (supra)
has also considered the scope of exercising
power provided under section 482 of Cr.P.C
and observed that such power can be exercised
either to prevent abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure ends of justice.
Thus, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case in
which this Court can exercise the power given
under section 482 of Cr.P.C as prima facie it
appears that due to political rivalry the
complaint has been filed by the local MLA
only on the basis of information given by
Mithala just to prevent her husband from
entering into 2nd marriage the said complaint
was filed to implicate the political persons of
opposite party. Therefore, the impugned order
dated 23.09.2017 passed in Criminal Case No.
2140/2017 by the court below for issue of
summons to the present petitioners is set aside
and the complaint filed by respondent no.1 is
accordingly dismissed.”
12. For the reasons stated hereinabove and considering the view taken
by this Court in the cases of similarly situated persons relying upon the
decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in a number of cases, this petition
also deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned complaint made
against the petitioner under Section 156(3) read with Section 190 of CR.P.C.
is hereby quashed and in consequence thereof, the orders dated 23.09.2017
passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tikamgarh, in Criminal Case
(RCT No. 102411/2017) No.2140/2017 and the order dated 22.12.2017
passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh, in Criminal
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 1/23/2025
11:44:07 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3015
18 MCRC-35398-2024
Revision No. 218/2017 are also set aside and all the proceedings arisen out
of the said orders are also quashed.
13. Petition is allowed.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
RAGHVENDRA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 1/23/2025
11:44:07 AM