Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rakesh Rathore vs Ratanlal Rathore on 7 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:13151
1 MCRC-11514-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
ON THE 7 th OF MAY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 11514 of 2026
RAKESH RATHORE
Versus
RATANLAL RATHORE
Appearance:
Shri Arpit Gupta advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Harshvardhan Pathak advocate for respondent.
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the parties on admission.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute has arisen
between the petitioner and accused Kamal over the illegal demand. The
petitioner approached the police Station Bajana. However, instead of
registering FIR, the police recorded only NCR under Section 155 of Cr.P.C.
The petitioner approached the Superintendent of Police Ratlam. On the basis
of CCTV footage, the SP directed registration of FIR No. 171/2022 under
Sections 323, 384, 385, 504 and 506 of IPC. He has submitted that thereafter
the security cheque was dishonestly misused to initiate retaliatory
proceedings. He has submitted that the prosecution under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act is a statutory presumption under Section 139 of
NIA regarding legally enforceable debt and accused is entitled to rebut this
presumption on preponderance of probabilities and by denying summoning
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 07-05-2026
18:00:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:13151
2 MCRC-11514-2026
of NCR, the courts below have effectively curtailed the petitioner’s ability to
establish prior hostility and absence of legally enforceable liability. He has
submitted that right to defend is not illusory, it must be real and effective and
denial of relevant defence evidence amounts to violation of Article 21 of
Constitution of India. He has submitted that Section 311 Cr.P.C. empowers
Court to summon any document or witness at any stage if it appears essential
to the just decision of the case. He has submitted that the revisional Court
has wrongly relied on the judgment passed in case of Sethuraman Vs. Raja
Manickam (2000) 2 SCC Page 1. He has further submitted that considering
these aspect the order passed by the learned JMFC dated 17.1.2026 which
was confirmed by the revisional Court dated 20.2.2026 is erroneous and
requires to be interfered with.
Counsel for respondent has opposed the petition by submitting that all
these facts was in the knowledge of petitioner since the year 2022, even
certain questions were also asked to the complainant in cross-examination by
defence counsel in the NIA proceedings. He further submits that the court
can exercise power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. but it could not be
considered that such power can be exercised to fill up the lacuna. He has
submitted that both the courts below have given cogent and convincing
reasons on the basis of material available on record and the facts of the case
which are consonance with the provisions of law, more particularly, law
regarding Section 311 of Cr.P.C. He has submitted that the learned revisional
Court has rightly referred to the case of Sethuraman (supra) . He has
submitted that in fact the petitioner was aware about this factum since 2022
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 07-05-2026
18:00:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:13151
3 MCRC-11514-2026
and has approached the Court at the fag end of trial that too after recording of
evidence and both the Courts below have considered the conduct of
petitioner as well as also material available on record. It is also recorded by
the revisional Court in paras 6, 7 and 8 of the judgment that the complaint
which is filed against the son of respondent Kamal is totally irrelevant and
the proceedings regarding NCR under Section 155 Cr.P.C. are also irrelevant
for consideration of the proceedings under Section 138 of NIA.Counsel for
respondent in support of his submission has relied upon the judgment of
Gujarat High Court in Special Criminal Appeal No. 8232/2018 and allied
matters dated 31.08.2023 in the matter of Iqbal Ahmed Abdul Karim Khatri
Vs. State of Gujarat and has submitted that no interference is required in the
matter.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the
record.
From bare perusal of the record it is prima facie found that the
petitioner is having knowledge about the NCR proceedings in the year 2022.
Thereafter he has participated in the proceedings under Negotiable
Instruments Act. Not only that, it transpires that the petitioner has also cross-
examined the complainant and has asked certain questions in his defence.
Thereafter it transpires that the present application is filed under Section 311
of Cr.P.C. For this purpose, it is relevant to refer to the observations in case
of Iqbal Ahmed Abdul Karim Khatri (supra) which are reproduced
hereunderbelow:-
7.1 I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar by the
respective parties. I have also perused the application as well asSignature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 07-05-2026
18:00:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:13151
4 MCRC-11514-2026
impugned order passed by the trial court.
7.2.1 It is fruitful of refer Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, as under:
“Section 311 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973:-
311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person
present. Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other
proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or
examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a
witness, or. recall and re-examine any person already examined;
and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine
any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the
just decision of the case.”
7.2.3 It is also fruitful to refer Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881, as under:
” Section 138 in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:-
138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the
account.–Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account
maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of
money to another person from out of that account for the
discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is
returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of
money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to
honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be
paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such
person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall,
without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished
with imprisonment for 19 a term which may be extended to two
years], or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the
cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this
section shall apply unless–
(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of
six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period
of its validity, whichever is earlier;
(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case
may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of
money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque,
20 [within thirty days] of the receipt of information by him from
the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and
(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the
said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the
holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the
receipt of the said notice.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 07-05-2026
18:00:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:13151
5 MCRC-11514-2026
Explanation.– For the purposes of this section, “debt or other
liability” means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.”
7.2.4 It is also fruitful to refer Section 2 of the Power of Attorney
Holder Act, 1882, as under:
“Section 2 in The Powers-of-attorney act, 1882:-
2. Execution under power-of-attorney.–The donee of a power-of-
attorney may, if he thinks fit, execute or do any 3 [***] instrument
or thing in and with his own name and signature, and his own seal,
where sealing is required, by the authority of the donor of the
power; and every 3 [***] instrument and thing so executed and
done, shall be as effectual in law as if it had been executed or
done by the donee of the power in the name, and with the
signature and seal, of the donor thereof. This section applies to
powers-of-attorney created by instruments executed either before
or after this Act comes into force.”
7.3 It becomes evident that the complaint is filed through the
power of attorney holder under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
Further, the power-of-attorney holder has also deposed by way of
affidavit, who was cross-examined by the defence. Thereafter, the
matter is tested for three year and the stage of evidence to
evidence further evidence is also closed by the trial court and
matter is posed for recording further statement. It becomes evident
that at this stage, the respondent No.2 – complainant has filed the
application for opening his right with a view to lead his evidence.
Once his power of attorney has already deposed before the trial
court, normally, the Court should not permit the original
complainant to depose as it is rightly contented by advocate for the
petitioner that it amount to fill up the lacuna. 7.4.1 It is relevant to
refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Rajendra Prasad versus Narcotic Cell through its Officer In
Charge, Delhi reported in (2019) 14 SCC 328, more particularly,
paragraphs 6, 7 and 11 are relevant, as under:
“6. It is a common experience in criminal courts that defence
counsel would raise objections whenever courts exercise powers
under Section 311 of the Code or under Section 165 of the
Evidence Act by saying that the Court could not fill the lacuna in
the prosecution case’. A lacuna in prosecution is not to be equated
with the fallout of an oversight committed by a public prosecutor
during trial, either in producing relevant materials or in eliciting
relevant answers from witnesses. The adage `to err is human’ is the
recognition-of the possibility of making mistakes to which
humans are proved. A corollary of any such latches or mistakesSignature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 07-05-2026
18:00:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:131516 MCRC-11514-2026
during the conducting of a case cannot be understood as the lacuna
which a court cannot fill up.
7. Lacuna in the prosecution must be understood as the inherent
weakness or a latent wedge in the matrix of the prosecution case.
The advantage of it should normally go to the accused in the trail
of the case, but an over sight in the management of the
prosecution cannot be treated as irreparable lacuna. No parry in a
trial can before-closed from correcting errors. If proper evidence
was not adduced or a relevant material was not brought on record
due to any inadvertence, the court should be magnanimous in
permitting such mistakes to be rectified. After all, function of the
criminal Court is administration of criminal justice and not to
count errors committed by the parties or to find out and declare
who among the parties performed better.
11. We cannot therefore accept the contention of the appellant as a
legal proposition that the Court cannot exercise power of re-
summoning any witness if once that power was exercised, nor can
the power be whittled down merely on the ground that prosecution
discovered latches only when the defence highlighted them during
final arguments, The power of the court is plenary to summon or
even recall any witness at any stage of the case if the court
considers it necessary for a just decision, The steps which the trial
court permitted in this case for re-summoning certain witnesses
cannot therefore be spurned down nor frowned at.”
7.4.2 It is also relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Vijay Kumar versus State of Uttar Pradesh,
reported in (2011) 8 SCC 136, more particularly, paragraphs 7, 18
and 20 are relevant, as under:
“17. Though Section 311 confers vast discretion upon the court
and is expressed in the widest possible terms, the discretionary
power under the said Section can be invoked only for the ends of
justice. Discretionary power should be exercised consistently with
the provisions of the Code and the principles of criminal law. The
discretionary power conferred under Section 311 has to be
exercised judicially for reasons stated by the Court and not
arbitrarily or capriciously. Before directing the learned Special
Judge to examine Smt. Ruchi Saxena as a court witness, the High
Court did not examine the reasons assigned by the learned Special
Judge as to why it was not necessary to examine her as a court
witness and has given the impugned direction without assigning
any reason.
18. The High Court failed to consider the case of the prosecution
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 07-05-2026
18:00:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:131517 MCRC-11514-2026
that the application was submitted by the respondent No. 2 only to
delay the trial and no case was made out by the respondent No. 2
as to why direction should be given to examine Smt. Ruchi Saxena
as a court witness. In a bribe case what is required to be proved by
the prosecution is that there was a demand of bribe by the accused
from the complainant and that pursuant to the said demand, bribe
amount was accepted by the accused. To prove this case it was not
necessary for the court to examine Smt. Ruchi Saxena as a court
witness. Neither the respondent No. 2 in his application nor the
court in the impugned judgment has specified the reason as to why
and how examination of Smt. Ruchi Saxena as a court witness is
necessary.
20. If this is the approach to be made while deciding application
under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court
fails to understand as to how the evidence of Smt. Ruchi Saxena
was relevant in the instant case and why direction should be given
to examine her as a court witness, as she was neither present at the
time when the bribe was demanded or even at the time when the
trap was arranged and laid. Without examining the relevance of
evidence, which may be tendered by Smt. Ruchi Saxena or the
necessity of examining her as a court witness or examining the
question of prejudice if at all which is likely to be caused to the
defence, if she is not examined, the High Court has directed the
learned Special Judge to examine Smt. Ruchi Saxena as a court
witness. There is no manner of doubt that the power under Section
311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is exercised
arbitrarily and, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set
aside.”
7.4.3 It is also relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v. C.B.I. reported
in (2019) 14 SCC 328, whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court has
observed that such application cannot be considered at the belated
stage, if it is filed with a view to filling the lacuna in the evidence
produced by the parties concerned. 7.4.4 It is relevant to refer the
judgment of this Court in the case of Naranbhai Dayaljibhai
Savani versus State of Gujarat reported in 2019 (0) AIJEL-HC
243128, more particularly, paragraphs 4 & 9 are relevant, as
under:
4. It appears that the petitioner (original accused) in various
proceedings initiated under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument
Act moved applications under Section 311 of Code of Criminal
Procedure for recalling of the witness viz. the complainant forSignature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 07-05-2026
18:00:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:13151
8 MCRC-11514-2026
further cross examination. Before, present petitions are considered
on merits, it is a matter of fact that the petitioner has not responded
to the notice issued by the original complainant before institution
of proceedings under Negotiable Instruments Act. Further, the
complainant has been cross examined at the hands of the petitioner
at length.
5. According to the petitioner, there is no any due amount payable
to the respondent – complainant in view of the fact that the
respondent – complainant got registered documents from the
petitioner’s son in respect of three flats. Such aspect of the matter
was not brought on record, despite the fact that the petitioner’s
advocate was informed and apprised about the said fact. In light of
this position, the petitioner relieved his earlier advocate and
engaged another advocate and therefore, the fact of registration of
documents by the petitioner’s son requires to be brought on record,
so as to prove that there is no amount due and payable by the
petitioner towards the disputed cheques.
6. Before the submissions made at bar are considered on its merits,
it is necessary and relevant to reproduce observations made by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Manju Devi v/s. State of
Rajasthan and Anr. reported in 2019(2) Cri.CC 549, more
particularly, para 9, which reads as under:-
“9. Section 311 CrPC reads as under:-
“311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person
present: Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other
proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or
examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a
witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined;
and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine
any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the
just decision of the case”.
9.1. It needs hardly any emphasis that the discretionary powers
like those under Section 311 CrPC are essentially intended to
ensure that every necessary and appropriate measure is taken by
the Court to keep the record straight and to clear any ambiguity in
so far as the evidence is concerned as also to ensure that no
prejudice is caused to anyone. The principles underlying Section
311 CrPC and amplitude of the powers of the Court thereunder
have been explained by this Court in several decisions 1. In
Natasha Singh v. CBI (State) : (2013) 5 SCC 741,
R/SCR.A/7833/2019 ORDER though the application for
examination of witnesses was filed by the accused but, on the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 07-05-2026
18:00:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:13151
9 MCRC-11514-2026
principles relating to the exercise of powers under Section 311,
this Court observed, inter alia, as under:-
“8. Section 311 CrPC empowers the court to summon a material
witness, or to examine a person present at “any stage” of “any
enquiry”, or “trial”, or “any other proceedings” under Cr.P.C. or to
summon any person as a witness, or to recall and re-examine any
person who has already been examined if his evidence appears to
it, to be essential to the arrival of a just decision of the case.
Undoubtedly, the CrPC has conferred a very wide discretionary
power upon the court in this respect, but such a discretion is to be
exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. The power of the court in
this context is very wide, and in exercise of the same, it may
summon any person as a witness at any stage of the trial, or other
proceedings. The court is competent to exercise such power even
suo motu if no such application has been filed by either of the
parties.
However, the court must satisfy itself, that it was in fact essential
to examine such a witness, or to recall him for further examination
in order to arrive at a just decision of the case.
15. The scope and object of the provision is to enable the court to
determine the truth and to render a just decision after discovering
all relevant facts and obtaining proper proof of such facts, to arrive
at a just decision of the case. Power must be exercised judiciously
and not capriciously or arbitrarily, as any improper or capricious
exercise of such power may lead to undesirable results. An
application under Section 311 CrPC must not be allowed only to
fill up a lacuna in the case of the prosecution, or of the defence, or
to the disadvantage of the accused, or to cause serious prejudice to
the defence of the accused, or to give an unfair advantage to the
opposite party. Further, the additional evidence must not be
received as a disguise for retrial, or to change the nature of the
case against either of the parties. Such a power must be exercised,
provided that the evidence that is likely to be tendered by a
witness, is germane to the issue involved. An opportunity of
rebuttal however, must be given to the other party. The power
conferred under Section 311 CrPC must therefore, be invoked by
the court only in order to meet the ends of justice, for strong and
valid reasons, and the same must be exercised with great caution
and circumspection. The very use of words such as “any Court”,
“at any stage”, or “or any enquiry, trial or other proceedings”, “any
person” and “any such person” clearly spells out that the
provisions of this section have been expressed in the widestSignature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 07-05-2026
18:00:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:13151
10 MCRC-11514-2026
possible terms, and do not limit the discretion of the Court in any
way. There is thus no escape if the fresh evidence to be obtained is
essential to the just decision of the case. The determinative factor
should therefore be, whether the summoning/recalling of the said
witness is in fact, essential to the just decision of the case.”
7. Now coming to the facts of the present case, it appears that the
petitioner has cross examined the complainant on the aspect of
registration of documents with respect to three flats. In that view
of the matter, subordinate courts below did not find any merit in
the applications moved by the petitioner under section 311 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure and more particularly on account of
engagement of another advocate.
8. Apart from it, it is a matter of fact that the applications are not
moved for further cross examination on account of subsequent
development or finding any important and relevant material,
which may be helpful for further cross examination of the
complainant.
9. For the sake of repetition, it is required to be noted here that the
petitioner has not responded to the notice issued by the
complainant prior to institution of proceedings under section 138
of the Negotiable Instrument Act on the one hand and on the other
hand, learned advocate for the petitioner has cross examined the
respondent – complainant on the aspect of alleged registered sale
deed and therefore, subordinate courts below and also this Court
do not find any reason to exercise powers under section 311 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, as there is no escape of evidence
with respect to registered sale deeds as stated at bar, at the time of
cross examination of the respondent – complainant and therefore,
present petitions being devoid of merits, both on law and facts are
hereby rejected at admission stage.”
7.4.5 It is also fruitful to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of State versus N. Seenivasagan reported in
(2021) 14 SCC 1, more particularly, paragraphs 12 and 13 are
relevant, as under:
“12. In our view, having due regard to the nature and ambit of
section 311 of the CrPC, it was appropriate and proper that the
applications filed by the prosecution ought to have been allowed.
Section 311 provides that any Court may, at any stage of any
inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the CrPC, summon any
person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though
not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person
already examined and the Court shall summon and examine orSignature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 07-05-2026
18:00:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1315111 MCRC-11514-2026
recall and re-examine any such person “if his evidence appears to
it to be essential to the just decision of the case”. The true test,
therefore, is whether it appears to the Court that the evidence of
such person who is sought to be recalled is essential to the just
decision of the case.
13. In Manju Devi v State of Rajasthan, a two-Judge bench of this
Court noted that an application under Section 311 could not be
rejected on the sole ground that the case had been pending for an
inordinate amount of time (ten years there). Rather, it noted that
“the length/duration of a case cannot displace the basic
requirement of ensuring the just decision after taking all the
necessary and material evidence on record. In other words, the age
of a case, by itself, cannot be decisive of the matter when a prayer
is made for examination of a material witness”. Speaking for the
Court, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari expounded on the principles
underlying Section 311 in the following terms:
10. It needs hardly any emphasis that the discretionary powers like
those under section 311 CrPC are essentially intended to ensure
that every necessary and appropriate measure is taken by the Court
to keep the record straight and to clear any ambiguity insofar as
the evidence is concerned as also to ensure that no prejudice is
caused to anyone. The principles underlying section 311 CrPC and
amplitude of the powers of the court thereunder have been
explained by this Court in several decisions in Natasha Singh v.
CBI, though the application for examination of witnesses was
filed by the accused but, on the principles relating to the exercise
of powers under Section 311, this Court observed, inter alia, as
under: (SCC pp. 746 & 748-49, paras 8 &15) “8. Section 311
CrPC empowers the court to summon a material witness, or to
examine a person present at “any stage” of “any enquiry”, or
“trial”, or “any other proceedings” under CrPC, or to summon any
person as a witness, or to recall and re-examine any person who
has already been examined if his evidence appears to it, to be
essential to the arrival of a just decision of the case . Undoubtedly,
CrPC has conferred a very wide discretionary power upon the
court in this respect, but such a discretion is to be exercised
judiciously and not arbitrarily.
The power of the court in this context is very wide, and in exercise
of the same, it may summon any person as a witness at any stage
of the trial, or other proceedings. The court is competent to
exercise such power even suo motu if no such application has
been filed by either of the parties. However, the court must satisfy
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 07-05-2026
18:00:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:13151
12 MCRC-11514-2026
itself, that it was in fact essential to examine such a witness, or to
recall him for further examination in order to arrive at a just
decision of the case.
***
15. The scope and object of the provision is to enable the court to
determine the truth and to render a just decision after discovering
all relevant facts and obtaining proper proof of such facts, to arrive
at a just decision of the case. Power must be exercised judiciously
and not capriciously or arbitrarily, as any improper or capricious
exercise of such power may lead to undesirable results. An
application under section 311 CrPC must not be allowed only to
fill up a lacuna in the case of the prosecution, or of the defence, or
to the disadvantage of the accused, or to cause serious prejudice to
the defence of the accused, or to give an unfair advantage to the
opposite party. Further, the additional evidence must not be
received as a disguise for retrial, or to change the nature of the
case against either of the parties. Such a power must be exercised,
provided that the evidence that is likely to be tendered by a
witness, is germane to the issue involved. An opportunity of
rebuttal however, must be given to the other party. The power
conferred under section 311 CrPC must therefore, be invoked by
the court only in order to meet the ends of justice, for strong and
valid reasons, and the same must be exercised with great caution
and circumspection. The very use of words such as “any court”, “at
any stage”, or “or any enquiry, trial or other proceedings”, “any
person” and “any such person” clearly spells out that the
provisions of this section have been expressed in the widest
possible terms, and do not limit the discretion of the court in any
way. There is thus no escape if the fresh evidence to be obtained is
essential to the just decision of the case. The determinative factor
should therefore be, whether the summoning/recalling of the said
witness is in fact, essential to the just decision of the case.”
(emphasis in original)”
7.5 Additionally, prima facie, considering the position of law and
facts of the present case, the trial court has committed gross in
allowing the application, which is filed at the stage of recording of
further statement, and more particularly, when the power-of-
attorney holder has already deposed and cross-examined.
Thereafter, there is no purpose to permit the complainant himself
to depose and filling the lacuna, which is after three year, his right
is closed for adducing the evidence for adducing evidence.
Therefore, the the present petition deserves to be allowed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 07-05-2026
18:00:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:13151
13 MCRC-11514-2026
8. Accordingly, the present petitions are allowed.
9. The impugned order dated 13.8.2018 passed in the application
below Exhibit 35 in Criminal Case No. 41533 of 2015 by the
learned 8th Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Surat as well as consequential proceedings if any are
quashed and set aside in Special Criminal Application No.8233 of
2018.
10. The impugned order dated 13.8.2018 passed in the application
below Exhibit 39 in Criminal Case No. 41534 of 2015 by the
learned 8th Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Surat as well as consequential proceedings if any are
quashed and set aside in Special Criminal Application No.8232 of
2018.
11. The impugned order dated 13.8.2018 passed in the application
below Exhibit 42 in Criminal Case No. 41525 of 2015 by the
learned 8th Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Surat as well as consequential proceedings if any are
quashed and set aside in Special Criminal Application No.8246 of
2018.
On going through the findings of the learned trial Court as well as the
revisional Court which are in consonance with the material available on
record and as per the law, I find no perversity or illegality in the findings
given by both the Courts below. Otherwise also, this Court has very limited
jurisdiction while considering the concurrent findings of facts of both the
Court below.
In view of the above discussion, the MCRC being devoid of merits, is
hereby dismissed.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT)
JUDGEBDJ
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 07-05-2026
18:00:26
