Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravi Kumar Potdar vs A.K.Dixit on 10 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 9880
1 CRR. No. 8/2015 and 3 others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 10th OF APRIL, 2026
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 8 of 2015
RAVI KUMAR POTDAR
Versus
A.K.DIXIT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ravi Kumar Potdar - Petitioner (self) present in person.
Shri Prasanna J. Mehta - Advocate for the respondent No6.
Shri Bharat Yadav - Advocate for the respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 477 of 2015
RAVI KUMAR POTDAR
Versus
JAY SAMTANI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ravi Kumar Potdar - Petitioner (self) present in person.
Shri Bharat Yadav - Advocate for the respondents.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 6 of 2015
RAVI KUMAR POTDAR
Versus
VIJAY KANOJIYA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ravi Kumar Potdar - Petitioner (self) present in person.
Shri Bharat Yadav - Advocate for the respondents.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 10-04-2026
20:30:25
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 9880
2 CRR. No. 8/2015 and 3 others
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1247 of 2016
RAVI KUMAR POTDAR
Versus
VIJAY KANOJIYA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ravi Kumar Potdar - Petitioner (self) present in person.
Shri Yogesh Kumar Gupta - Advocate for the respondent No.3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the criminal revisions, except CRR No. 477 of 2015 heard on
13.02.2026, were heard on 28.01.2026.
Today, on 10.04.2026, all the criminal revisions are being
pronounced.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
In all the criminal revisions the revision petitioner is
common and the question of law to be determined is also common,
therefore, all the revision petitions are heard analogously and are
being disposed of by this common order.
2. The common question raised regarding the maintainability
of the criminal revisions filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401
of the Cr.P.C., 1973 directly before the High Court is being
decided. The question of maintainability is being reproduced
below:-
“Whether criminal revision filed under Section 397/401 of
the Cr.P.C., 1973 is directly maintainable before this High
Court or whether revision petitioner/complainant is
required to approach before the Sessions Court having
jurisdiction under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C., 1973?
Heard both the parties.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 10-04-2026
20:30:25
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 9880
3 CRR. No. 8/2015 and 3 othersCRR NO.477 of 2015
3. This revision petition arises out of order dated 16.04.2015
by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore whereby on a
complaint filed under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 for taking
cognizance under Section 409/34, 420, 120-B, 467/34, 468/34,
471, 202/34, 212/34 and 119/34 of the IPC against five accused
persons/respondents. The complaint has been dismissed under
Section 203 of the Cr.P.C., 1973.
CRR NO.6 of 2015
4. This criminal revision arises out of order dated 09.10.2014
by JMFC, Indore whereby on a complaint filed under Section 409,
420, 120-B, 467, 468, 471, 202, 212 of the IPC against the
respondents/6 accused persons, cognizance have been taken only
under Section 409 of the IPC against the respondent No.1, 2 and 3
but cognizance have not been taken under Section 420, 467, 468,
471 and 120-B of the IPC and complaint has been dismissed
against the respondent No.4 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471,
119, 120-B of the IPC and respondent No.5 and 6 under Section
119 of the IPC.
CRR NO.8 of 2015
5. This revision petition arises out of order dated 29.11.2014 by
JMFC, Indore whereby complaint filed under Section 200 of the
Cr.P.C., 1973 for taking cognizance under Section 409, 467, 468,
471, 120-B, 119 of the IPC against the respondent, cognizance has
taken only against respondent No.6 under Section 409 of the IPC
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 10-04-2026
20:30:25
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 9880
4 CRR. No. 8/2015 and 3 others
and no cognizance have been taken against the respondent No.6
under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC and complaint
against the respondent No.1 to 5 have been dismissed. Vide order
dated 20.04.2016, the revision petitioner does not wish to
prosecute the case against the respondent No.1 and 5 and vide
order dated 06.04.2016, the name of respondent No.3 was deleted
as it was intimated that he died.
CRR NO.1247 of 2016
6. This revision petition arises out of order dated 08.04.2016 in
ST No.989/2015 by 14th Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Indore whereby charge under Section 409 of the IPC alternatively
under Section 409/34 of the IPC have been framed against the
respondent but charges under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-
B of the IPC have not been framed in a case arise out of complaint
filed by the revision petitioner under Sections 409, 420, 120-B,
467, 471, 202, 212, 119 of the IPC.
Firstly, this Court is dealing with the objections raised by
the respondents in CRR No.1247/2016.
8. In this revision petition, the impugned order has been passed
by the 14th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Indore,
therefore, the objections have no substance. The revision against
the order of Additional Sessions Judge will lie to the High Court
only, accordingly, CRR No.1247/2016 is maintainable.
Now this Court is considering the CRR Nos.6/2015, 8/2015
and 477/2015 in which the impugned orders have been passed by
the Court of Magistrates.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 10-04-2026
20:30:25
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 9880
5 CRR. No. 8/2015 and 3 others
9. The respondents have raised the question of maintainability
by referring to Ravi Kumar Potdar vs. M.B. Ojha and Ors., order
dated 08.04.2024 in CRR No.274/2015 by the High Court of
M.P. Bench at Indore and reported as 2024 Latest Caselaw 9536
MP.
10. On the other hand, revision petitioner in person have
opposed the objections by referring to Isaac Jaise vs. Jasmit
Singh Saluja and Another reported in 2002 SCC OnLine MP
572, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Khizar Mohammad reported in
1996 SCC OnLine MP 76, Central Bureau of Investigation vs.
State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2007 S.C. 2522, S.
Sathyanarayana vs. State reported in 2003 SCC OnLine Kar 76,
Mohan Lal and Ors. Vs. Prem Chand and Ors reported in 1980
SCC OnLine HP 36, Kesavan Sivan Pillai vs. Sreedharan
Rajamohan and Ors. Reported in 1978 SCC OnLine Ker 18,
Madhavlal vs. Chandra – Shekhar reported in 1975 SCC OnLine
Bom 96, Praban Kumar Mitra vs. State of West Bengal reported
in 1959 Supp (1) SCR 63 and Ms. Cerena D’souza vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in 2002 Cr.L.J.4196.
11. The above discussions of law in referred case is that the
Sessions Court and High Court have concurrent jurisdiction
regarding the criminal revision. The maintainability of the
proceedings is one thing while its entertainability is another thing.
When the proceeding is not maintainable by two different courts
one being inferior or subordinate to the other, then it is certainly a
question of propriety, particularly for the superior court, as to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 10-04-2026
20:30:25
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 9880
6 CRR. No. 8/2015 and 3 others
whether it should entertain such a proceedings which could have
been filed in the lower court. It is material to note that the revision
is not a statutory right of litigant but it is a matter of discretion of
the Court having revisional jurisdiction.
12. In these cases, this Court allows the objection of respondents
regarding entertainability of the CRR Nos.6/2015, 8/2015 and
477/2015 before this Court directly for two reasons. Firstly, no
special and exceptional reasons have been assigned for filing the
revision petitions directly in this Court. Secondly, in the similar
set of facts where revision petitioner itself have filed the revision
petition and Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ravi Kumar
Potdar (supra) considered all the grounds which are raised here
and considering the rights of the accused persons, the objections
were entertained. Relevant paragraphs of Ravi Kumar (Supra) are
reproduced as below:-
6. So far as law laid down in the cases relied upon by the
applicant, there is no dispute to the proportion of the law. The
revisional jurisdiction conferred under the aforesaid provisions
is a concurrent jurisdiction and the option is given to the
aggrieved person. However, in those cases the right of the
accused person has not been considered.
7. In the case of Manharibhai (supra), the Court considered the
right of the accused persons in para-48. It is apt to reproduce
para 48 of the judgment.
48. In case where the complaint has been dismissed by the
Magistrate under section 203 of the Code either at the stage of
section 200 itself or on completion of inquiry by the Magistrate
under section 202 or on receipt of the report from the police or
from any person to whom the direction was issued by the
magistrate to investigate into the allegations in the complaint,
the effect of such dismissal or termination of complaint
proceedings. On a plain reading of subsection (2) of SectionSignature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 10-04-2026
20:30:25
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 9880
7 CRR. No. 8/2015 and 3 others401, it cannot be said that the person against whom the
allegations of having committed the offence have been made in
the complaint and the complaint has been dismissed by the
Magistrate under section 203, has no right to he heard because
no process has been issued. The dismissal of complaint by the
Magistrate under section 203- although it is at preliminary
stage- nevertheless result in termination of proceedings in a
complaint against the persons who are alleged to have
committed the crime. Once a challenge is laid to such order at
the instance of the complainant in a revision petition before the
High Court or the Sessions Judge, by virtue of section 401(2)
Cr.P.C., the suspects get the right of hearing before the
Revisional Court although such order was passed without their
participation. The right given to “accused” or ‘the other person’
under section 401(2) of being heard before the Revisional
Court to defend an order which operates in his favour should
not be confused with the proceedings before a Magistrate under
sections 200, 202, 203 and 204. In the revision petition before
the High Court or the Sessions Judge at the instance of the
complainant challenging the order of dismissal of complaint,
one of the things that could happen is reversal of the order of
the Magistrate and revival of the complaint. It is in this view of
the matter that the accused or other person cannot be deprived
of hearing on the face of the express provision contained in
section 401(2) of the Code. The stage is not important whether
it is pre-process stage or post process stage.”
13. This Court have no reason to take a different view as taken
by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ravi Kumar Potdar
(supra). Accordingly, the objections are allowed and held that
present CRR Nos.6/2015, 8/2015 and 477/2015 are not directly
entertainable to the High Court.
14. However, considering the fact that revisions are pending
since 2015, it is directed that in case if the revision is filed before
the Sessions court within a period of 60 days from today, the said
revisions shall not be dismissed on the question of limitation and
shall be decided on merit in accordance with law.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 10-04-2026
20:30:25
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 9880
8 CRR. No. 8/2015 and 3 others
15. In view of above, CRR Nos.6/2015, 8/2015 and 477/2015
stand disposed of.
16. However, in CRR No.1247 of 2016, the impugned order has
been passed by the 14th Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Indore, therefore, the objections have no substance. The revision
against the order of Additional Sessions Judge will lie to the High
Court only, accordingly, CRR No.1247/2016 is maintainable.
Hence, CRR No.1247/2016 be listed for arguments in the second
week of May, 2026.
17. Let a signed copy of this order be retained in CRR
No.8/2015 and photocopy of the same be kept in the record of
connected revisions.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
Vatan
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 10-04-2026
20:30:25