Madhya Pradesh High Court
Naveen Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 July, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20441
1 Cr.R. No.1398/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
Cr. R. No.1398/2024
NAVEEN SHRIVASTAVA
VS.
STATE OF M.P. AND ANOTHER
Appearance:
Shri Priyvrat Singh Chouhan - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Dinesh Singh Chouhan (GA) appearing on behalf of
Advocate General/respondent No.1/State.
______________________________________________________
Reserved on : 16/07/2026
Post on : 27/07/2026
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:44:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20441
2 Cr.R. No.1398/2024
______________________________________________________
ORDER
1. The present Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section
397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973. The Revisionist challenges the framing of charges against
him by the Subordinate Court.
2. The challenge is directed against the impugned order dated
07.07.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jobat, District
Alirajpur, in Sessions Trial No.27/2021. By the said order, the
learned trial court has framed charges against the Petitioner under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, and 120-B of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC).
FACTS IN BRIEF
3. The Petitioner is a Gazetted Officer of the Government of
Madhya Pradesh, appointed as Assistant Director of the Tribal
Welfare Department. He was assigned the additional charge of
Block Education Officer, Udaigarh, for a brief period of 43 days,
extending from 20.03.2017 to 02.05.2017.
4. An FIR was registered on 16.07.2020 against co-accused
Rituraj Solanki under Sections 409 and 420 of the IPC. This FIR
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:44:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20441
3 Cr.R. No.1398/2024
stemmed from an audit conducted by the Auditor General for the
period between February 2016 and July 2018, which revealed
severe financial irregularities amounting to approximately
Rs.5,04,34,000/- in the Tribal Welfare Department, Alirajpur.
5. Following the audit, the department constituted an Enquiry
Committee, which included the present Petitioner as a member.
Based on this committee’s detailed enquiry report, the FIR was
lodged. During the investigation, the co-accused Rituraj Solanki
allegedly made a memorandum statement under Section 27 of the
Indian Evidence Act, taking sole responsibility for the fraud and
exonerating other officers.
6. Despite the Petitioner’s role in leading the Enquiry
Committee and acting as a prosecution witness initially, a charge-
sheet was filed on 23.12.2020 implicating the Petitioner as a co-
accused. The trial Court subsequently passed the impugned order on
07.07.2023 framing charges against him.
7. The allegations forming the basis of the charges include
operating unauthorized bank accounts despite closure directives,
forging documents to obtain government funds, failing to distribute
funds to beneficiaries, facilitating the issuance of 6 fraudulent
cheques totaling Rs.11,14,295/-, and facilitating illegal internet
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:44:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20441
4 Cr.R. No.1398/2024
banking transfers amounting to Rs.2,93,566/-, thereby committing
criminal breach of trust and conspiracy.
CONTENTIONS OF THE REVISIONIST
8. The Revisionist contends that he possesses an unblemished
service record of 23 years and held the charge for merely 43 days.
He argues that the investigation fails to demonstrate any personal
gain or wrongful benefit accrued to him. Furthermore, he asserts
that the allegedly unauthorized bank accounts were registered with
the email and phone number of the co-accused and were entirely
outside his knowledge and control.
9. Regarding the 6 cheques totaling Rs.11,14,295/-, the
Revisionist submits that they were signed and encashed after his
tenure ended on 02.05.2017. He relies upon a report dated
28.04.2023 from the State Examiner of Questioned Documents,
which categorically states that the handwriting on the questioned
cheques does not match the Petitioner’s handwriting.
10. The Revisionist further contends that he bona fide prepared
112 bills for payment to beneficiaries, and it was the co-accused
Sub Treasury Officer who fraudulently diverted these funds.
Consequently, it is argued that the essential ingredients of Sections
420, 467, 468, 471, 409, and 120-B IPC are entirely absent.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:44:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20441
5 Cr.R. No.1398/2024
11. Relying upon the judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. N.
Suresh Rajan & Others, (2014)11 SCC 709 the Revisionist
submits that the court cannot act merely as a post office. The
Revisionist quotes:
“28. Yet another decision on which reliance has been
placed is the decision of this Court in Dilawar Balu
Kurane v. State of Maharashtra, reference has been
made to the following paragraph of the said judgment:
(SCC p. 140, para 12)
“12. Now the next question is whether a prima facie
case has been made out against the appellant. In
exercising powers under Section 227 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the settled position of law is that
the Judge while considering the question of framing
the charges under the said section has the undoubted
power 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; ‘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 by and
large if two views are equally possible and the Judge is
satisfied that the evidence produced before him while
giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion
against the accused, he will be fully justified to
discharge the accused, and in exercising jurisdiction
under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
the Judge cannot act merely as a post office or a
mouthpiece Procedure, the Judge cannot act merely as
a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:44:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20441
6 Cr.R. No.1398/2024
has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the
total effect of the evidence and the documents
produced before the court but should not make a
roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and
weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial….”
“29. We have bestowed our consideration to the rival
submissions and the submissions made by Mr. Ranjit
Kumar commend us. True it is that at the time of
consideration of the applications for discharge, the
court cannot act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution or
act as a post office and may sift evidence in order to
find out whether or not the allegations made are
groundless so as to pass an order of discharge. It is
trite that at the stage of consideration of an,
application for discharge, the court has to proceed
with an assumption that the materials brought on
record by the prosecution are true and evaluate the
said materials and documents with a view to find out
whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their
face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients
constituting the alleged offence. At this stage,
probative value of the materials has to be gone into
and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter
and hold that the materials would not warrant a
conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be
considered is whether there is a ground for presuming
that the offence has been committed and not whether a
ground for convicting the accused has been made out.
To put it differently, if the court thinks that the accused
might have committed the offence on the basis of the
materials on record on its probative value, it can
frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has
to come to the conclusion that the accused hasSignature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:44:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:204417 Cr.R. No.1398/2024
committed the offence. The law does not permit a mini
trial at this stage.”
12. To assail the charge under Section 420 IPC, the Revisionist
relies on Mohammed Ibrahim & Others v. State of
Bihar,(2009)8 SCC 751 quoting verbatim:
“18. Let us examine whether the ingredients of an
offence of cheating are made out. The essential
ingredients of the offence of “cheating” are as follows:
(i) deception of a person either by making a false or
misleading representation or by dishonest concealment
or by any other act or omission. (ii) fraudulent or
dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver
any property or to consent to the retention thereof by
any person or to intentionally induce that person so
deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would
not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (iii)
such act or omission causing or is likely to cause
damage or harm to that person in body, mind,
reputation or property.
To constitute an offence under section 420, there
should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of
such cheating, the accused should have dishonestly
induced the person deceived (1) to deliver any
property to any person, or (ii) to make, alter or destroy
wholly or in part a valuable security (or anything
signed or sealed and which is capable of being
converted into a valuable security).”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:44:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20441
8 Cr.R. No.1398/2024
13. In addition, the Revisionist relies on Hemlata Mehra vs The
State Of Madhya Pradesh,CRR/267/2016 quoting verbatim:
“In the instant case, it is not alleged that the petitioner
had put her signatures in the name of some other
person, rather as per prosecution, she had put her
signatures in her own name. Further, it is not the
allegation that any document was altered or modified
it is not the allegation that any document was altered
or modified by her. Lastly, it is also not the case of the
prosecution that the petitioner obtained signatures on
a document from a person by practicing deception or a
person who was under intoxication or a person of
unsoundness of mind, therefore, the alleged act or
conduct of the petitioner in making a false declaration
in the form submitted by her is not covered under any
of the situations contemplated in Section 464 of IPC so
as to constitute an offence under Section 467, 468 &
471 of IPC. Therefore, in absence thereof, prima facie,
it cannot be said that the said offences u/S. 467, 468 &
471 of IPC are made out. The learned trial Judge
while framing the charges has not considered the
aforesaid factual and legal aspects and has framed the
charges in a mechanical manner. A person can be
subjected to criminal trial only for the culpable act or
conduct attributable to him. In the instant case even if
all the allegations made in the charge-sheet are
accepted on their face value, still a case for making of
false document is not made out, therefore, charges for
offences under Section 467, 468 & 471 of IPC, prima
facie cannot be said to be made out against her, hence,Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:44:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:204419 Cr.R. No.1398/2024
the impugned order to that extent being illegal, is
unsustainable.”
14. Assailing the charge of criminal conspiracy, the Revisionist
relies upon Ram Sharan Chaturvedi v. The State Of Madhya
Pradesh,(2022)16 SCC 166 quoting verbatim:
“27. The principal ingredient of the offence of
criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC is
an agreement to commit an offence. Such an
agreement must be proved through direct or
circumstantial evidence. Court has to necessarily
ascertain whether there was an agreement between the
Appellant and A-1 and A-2. In the decision of State of
Kerala v. P. Sugathan and Anr. 2, this Court noted that
an agreement forms the core of the offence of
conspiracy, and it must surface in evidence through
some physical manifestation:…..” “33. For the reasons
stated above we are of the opinion that the prosecution
failed to establish the circumstances in which the
Appellant, being the custodian of only one set of the
keys for the dual lock system functional in the Bank,
could alone be made responsible for providing access
to the strong room and the safe in the Bank. We are
also of the clear opinion that the prosecution failed to
establish the existence of any agreement between the
Appellant, A-1 and A-2, which is quintessential for a
charge under Section 120B of the IPC. In the absence
of such an agreement, even by inference through
circumstantial evidence, the Appellant is entitled to be
acquitted of the charge of criminal conspiracy.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:44:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20441
10 Cr.R. No.1398/2024
15. Finally, contending that the charges are vague and omnibus,
the Revisionist relies upon Susanta Kumar Dalei @ Susanta
Kumar vs State of Odisha,2026 SCC Online SC 889 quoting
verbatim:
“19. In any criminal case, there must be clear and
specific material that shows the accused might have
committed the crime. A case cannot be allowed to
continue based only on guesses or vague statements. In
this case, the material does not show any direct
involvement of the Appellant in the crime. The
accusations are made against a group of people
together and do not explain what exactly the Appellant
is supposed to have done. Such broad and general
claims, without mentioning the Appellant’s individual
role, are not enough to continue with the trial.
We are of the opinion that the presence of general
allegations, without any overt act or specific
imputations against the accused, cannot be sufficient
to proceed to trial. The law is well settled that at the
stage of consideration of discharge, though a detailed
appreciation of evidence is not warranted, the Court
must be satisfied that there exists sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused. In this case, even if
the entirety of the material produced by the
prosecution is accepted as true, it does not disclose the
commission of any offence by the Appellant. The
allegations appear to be cast in a net wide enough toSignature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:44:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2044111 Cr.R. No.1398/2024
implicate all, without regard to individual acts or
culpability. This is impermissible under law.”
CONTENTIONS OF THE STATE / RESPONDENT
16. The respondent State has vehemently opposed the present
revision petition. The principal defense raised by the prosecution is
that all the grounds urged by the Revisionist constitute disputed
questions of fact. It is submitted that such disputed facts cannot be
evaluated or summarily determined in a revisional jurisdiction, as
they strictly require the leading and appreciation of evidence in the
trial court.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
17. Heard and perused the record available.
18. At the outset, it is essential to describe the scope of revisional
jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C.
Revisional jurisdiction is inherently supervisory in nature and exists
to correct patent illegalities, jurisdictional errors, or manifest
perversity on the face of the record.
19. The Revisional Court does not function as a regular Court of
Appeal. Consequently, a detailed re-appreciation of evidence, or
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:44:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20441
12 Cr.R. No.1398/2024
conducting a mini-trial to test the veracity of the prosecution’s
claims, is impermissible unless doing so is strictly required to
prevent a gross miscarriage of justice. Interference is ordinarily
warranted only where findings are entirely perverse or suffer from a
material irregularity.
20. In the present matter, the specific issue to be determined is
whether the allegations leveled against the Petitioner amount to
disputed questions of fact requiring a full-fledged trial, thereby
rendering interference at the stage of framing of charges
unwarranted.
21. Upon a careful examination of the impugned order, the
Revisionist’s contentions, and the State’s defense, it becomes
apparent that the Petitioner’s arguments heavily rely on factual
defenses. The Petitioner’s claim that he was completely unaware of
the continued operation of Bank of Baroda Account
No.11940100002370 and State Bank of India Account
No.32230143507 is basically a factual dispute.
22. Furthermore, the allegations regarding the creation of forged
documents and the diversion of funds meant for beneficiaries–
specifically through internet banking transfers amounting to
Rs.2,93,566/- and sub-treasury withdrawals of Rs.8,90,546/- into
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:44:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20441
13 Cr.R. No.1398/2024
the government account–demand strict judicial scrutiny that can
only be achieved through the examination and cross-examination of
witnesses.
23. Whether the Petitioner acted bona fide while preparing the
112 bills, and whether the subsequent fraudulent diversions were
solely the independent actions of the co-accused Sub-Treasury
Officer, are matters of evidence. The intent, knowledge, and
complicity of the Petitioner during his 43-day tenure as the Drawing
and Disbursing Officer represent core triable issues.
24. Similarly, the affording evidence of the State Examiner of
Questioned Documents report, which purportedly exonerates the
Petitioner concerning the signatures on the 6 cheques, cannot be
conclusively adjudicated in revisional proceedings. The prosecution
must be afforded the statutory opportunity to test this evidence
during the trial.
25. I have considered the statutory provisions and the judicial
precedents relied upon by the Revisionist. While the principles
enunciated therein regarding the strict ingredients of cheating,
forgery, and conspiracy are well-settled, they do not authorize the
Revisional Court to pre-judge disputed factual defenses. At the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:44:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20441
14 Cr.R. No.1398/2024
stage of framing charges, the Court is only required to ascertain the
existence of grave suspicion.
26. The allegations enumerated above clearly substantiate that
the material placed on record by the prosecution raises triable
issues. These allegations constitute purely disputed questions of fact
that must be adjudicated by the trial Court upon a thorough
appreciation of evidence.
27. Therefore, I find that the impugned order dated 07.07.2023
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge does not suffer from any
jurisdictional error, patent illegality, perversity, or material
irregularity. The trial Court has correctly applied its mind to the
prima facie material available on record.
28. No case is made out demonstrating a gross miscarriage of
justice that would necessitate invoking the supervisory powers of
this Court. Consequently, no interference with the impugned order
is warranted.
29. Resultantly, the Criminal Revision Petition is devoid of merit
and is hereby dismissed. The impugned order dated 07.07.2023 is
affirmed. The trial Court shall proceed with the matter in
accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:44:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20441
15 Cr.R. No.1398/2024
made herein, which are confined solely to the disposal of this
revision.
(Jai Kumar Pillai)
Judge
Aiyer*/PS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:44:26
