Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh And 4 Ors. vs Kadar And 8 Ors. on 22 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11060
1 CRR-86-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 86 of 2014
RAMESH AND 4 ORS. AND OTHERS
Versus
KADAR AND 8 ORS. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Padmnabh Saxena - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vijay Prabhakar Saraf, learned counsel for the respondent [R-1].
Heard On: 25.03.2026
Delivered On: 22.04.2026
ORDER
This Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 and 482 of
Cr.P.C., 1973 is preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 03.01.2014 passed
in CRR No.66/2011 by Second ASJ, Khargone M.P. whereby modifying the order
dated 09.12.2010 passed in a complaint filed by respondent, the cognizance has
been ordered under Section 302 /34 read with Section 201 of IPC against the
revision petitioner.
2. Facts in brief are that a complaint was preferred before the JMFC,
Khargone against 13 accused persons i.e. respondent nos.2 to 10 and present
revision petitioners for taking cognizance under Section 302/34 read with Section
201 and 120-B of IPC regarding the incident dated 16.05.1991 at about 08:00PM
in village Gogava in which four persons belonging to Muslim community namely
Ahmad Hussain, Saleem, Rafiq and Mehmood all resident of village Gogava were
murdered by a mob of anti social elements. Allegations were leveled against the
revision petitioner alongwith the police officials as well as the members of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 24-04-2026
11:27:19
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11060
2 CRR-86-2014
society. Respondent no.1 approached various authorities, but he was not heard and
no criminal law was enforced on his complaint and his complaint was not taken
into consideration. He Preferred a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) bearing WP
No.1866/2007 before the High Court of MP Bench at Indore. Despite the order of
this Court in the said PIL, no relief was granted to the respondent no.1. and he
preferred the complaint.
3. Respondent no.1 examined himself as PW-1, Abdul Kadir S/o Abdul
Rehmaan PW-2, Sultan PW-3, Hajra PW-4, Hoora Pw-5, Kallu PW-6, Bhuribai
PW-7 and Jannum as PW-8 under Section 203 of Cr.P.C., 1973 and a report was
also called from the SDOP, Bhikangaon, Khargone.
4. Vide order dated 09.12.2010 (A/5), the complaint was dismissed under
Section 203 of Cr.P.C., 1973.
5. Challenging the order of JMFC, Khargone, a revision petition was
preferred and the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone allowed the
revision petition partially and ordered to take cognizance against the revision
petitioner under Section 302/34 and 201 of IPC and directed to proceed further
accordingly.
6. Challenging the impugned order of learned 2nd ASJ, Khargone, the
present revision petition has been preferred on the ground that one another private
complaint was filed by one Abdul Kadir S/o Abdul Rahmaan for the same incident
against the same accused persons and allegations were also identical and that
complaint was also dismissed by JMFC, Khargone vide order dated 08.02.2010
and against which, the CRR No.151/2009 by the 2nd ASJ, Khargone was also
dismissed. In this case, the Additional Sessions Judge has committed grave error of
law in not considering the credibility of the evidence as the witness kept silence for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 24-04-2026
11:27:19
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11060
3 CRR-86-2014
a period of 16 long years. No explanation has been given by any of the witness that
whey he did not disclose about the incident for a period of 16 years. This long
delay itself shows that the evidence produced in the case is not credible at all and
no finding can be based upon such incredible evidence. The learned Sessions
Court has committed grave error in not believing the enquiry report filed by
SDOP, Bhikangao, Khargone in which it has been clearly stated that there is no
evidence against the applicants.
7. Heard.
8. Counsel for respondent no.1 has opposed the prayer.
9. Perused the record.
10. Before proceeding further, the scope of criminal revision challenging the
dismissal of a complaint under Section 203 of CR.P.C., 1973 is being reproduced
through section 398 of Cr.P.C, 1973 and corresponding Section 439 of BNSS,
2023;
398. Power to order inquiry.
On examining any record under Section 397 or
otherwise, the High Court or the Sessions Judge may direct
the Chief Judicial Magistrate by himself or by any of the
Magistrates subordinate to him to make, and the Chief
Judicial Magistrate may himself make or direct any
subordinate Magistrate to make, further inquiry into any
complaint which has been dismissed under Section 203 or
sub-section (4) of Section 204, or into the case of any person
accused of an offence who has been discharged :
Provided that no Court shall make any direction under
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 24-04-2026
11:27:19
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:110604 CRR-86-2014
this Section for inquiry into the case of any person who has
been discharged unless such person has had an opportunity of
showing cause why such direction should not be made.
439. Power to order inquiry (BNSS)
On examining any record under section 438 or
otherwise, the High Court or the Sessions Judge may direct
the Chief Judicial Magistrate by himself or by any of the
Magistrates subordinate to him to make, and the Chief
Judicial Magistrate may himself make or direct any
subordinate Magistrate to make, further inquiry into any
complaint which has been dismissed under section 226 or
sub- section (4) of section 227, or into the case of any person
accused of an offence who has been discharged:
Provided that no Court shall make any direction under
this section for inquiry into the case of any person who has
been discharged unless such person has had an opportunity of
showing cause why such direction should not be made.
11. Accordingly, learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone was not
within the jurisdiction to order to take cognizance of offence against the revision
petitioners instead he was justified in conducting the further enquiry.
12. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by learned 2nd ASJ, Khargone
is modified to the extent that instead of taking cognizance, the concerned
Magistrate shall conduct a further enquiry considering the compliant filed by one
Abdul Kadir S/o Abdul Rahmaan which was dismissed by JMFC, Khargone as
well as affirmed in CRR No.151/2009 by 2nd ASJ, Khargone by calling the
record of the case and ensure whether that complaint relates to the same offence orSignature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 24-04-2026
11:27:19
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:110605 CRR-86-2014
the same is further challenged or not. The learned Magistrate shall pass an
speaking and reasoned order as per law.
13. With the aforesaid, the revision petition stands partly allowed and
disposed off.
14. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Sessions Court and JMFC,
Khargone concerned for necessary information and compliance.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
amit
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 24-04-2026
11:27:19
