Vipin Shrivastav vs State of M. P. - 2026 Supreme(MP) 743

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 379, 403, and 468 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 227 - Framing of charges - Standard of "grave suspicion" - At the stage of discharge under Section 227, the Judge must sift the evidence to determine if there is sufficient ground for proceeding - If materials disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court is justified in framing a charge - The court is not to enter into a detailed weighing of evidence as if conducting a trial, but must determine if the commission of the offence was possible. (Paras 12, 13 and 14)

(B) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 200, 202 and 231 - Examination of witnesses in session trials - Examination of all witnesses cited in a complaint is not a condition precedent for taking cognizance or issuing process in cases triably by the Court of Sessions - Under Section 231, the prosecution is entitled to produce any person as a witness during trial, provided the evidence is relevant, regardless of whether such witness was examined under Section 200 or 202 or named in the initial charge-sheet. (Paras 15, 16 and 18)

Facts of the case:
A former government officer was accused of demanding money to arrange a job and subsequently stealing documents, including cheques, from the complainant. The complainant later received a notice regarding the dishonor of a cheque which matched the details of the stolen documents. The accused challenged the framing of charges under sections 379, 403, and 468 of the IPC and further objected to the trial court permitting the examination of witnesses who had not been examined during the inquiry stage before the Magistrate.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the complaint and supporting documents were sufficient to raise "grave suspicion" against the accused to justify framing charges. Additionally, the court held that the trial court committed no illegality in summoning witnesses as per the trial program, as the law does not restrict the prosecution to only those witnesses examined during the pre-committal stage.

Issues: (i) Whether the allegations and materials on record satisfy the standard of "grave suspicion" for framing of charges under sections 379, 403 and 468 of the IPC; and (ii) Whether the prosecution is deprived of examining witnesses in a session trial who were not examined under sections 200 or 202 of the CrPC.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of framing charges under Section 227 CrPC, the court only needs to be satisfied that there is grave suspicion against the accused. Regarding witness examination, Section 231 CrPC empowers the prosecution to produce any relevant witness during the trial, and the failure to examine such witnesses during the Section 200 or 202 inquiry does not bar their testimony at trial.

Result: Both criminal revisions dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Complaint alleging job-assurance fraud, theft of bank documents, and forgery — Charges under Sections 379, 403, 468 IPC — Procedural history of witness lists and pre-cognizance inquiry. (Para 2 , 5 , 6 )

2. Accused contends materials do not disclose grave suspicion, xerox documents are inadmissible, and witnesses not examined under Sections 200/202 CrPC cannot be examined at trial; prosecution and complainant oppose. (Para 3 , 4 , 7 , 9 , 10 )

3. Both questions answered against revision petitioner; criminal revisions dismissed; framing of charges and witness-summoning order affirmed. (Para 14 , 18 , 19 )

4. What is the standard for framing charges or discharging an accused under Section 227 CrPC?

The judge may sift evidence only to decide whether a prima facie case exists; grave suspicion not explained justifies framing charges, and mere suspicion is insufficient. The court cannot conduct a roving enquiry or weigh evidence; defence objections are for trial. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )

5. Is examination of all witnesses cited in a complaint a condition precedent for cognizance in a case exclusively triable by the Sessions Court?

No. Under the proviso to Section 202(2) CrPC, examination of all witnesses cited or disclosed is not a condition precedent for taking cognizance or issuing process against the persons named in the complaint. (Para 15 )

6. In a Sessions trial instituted on a complaint, is the prosecution barred from examining witnesses not examined under Sections 200/202 CrPC?

No. Section 231 CrPC does not restrict the prosecution to witnesses examined in the pre-cognizance inquiry; the trial court must examine witnesses listed under Section 204 if relevant, and even witnesses not named earlier may be produced. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )

ORDER :

GAJENDRA SINGH, J.

Both the criminal revisions arises in connection with Session Case No. 250/2003, pending before the Court of 4th Additional Session Judge Shajapur (MP), in which charges under Section 379, 403, 468 of the IPC have been framed against the revision petitioner in a case instituted on the Complaint of Respondent No. 2 in both the revision petitions.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that Respondent No. 2 in both the revision petitions filed a complaint before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjapur, (M.P.) against the revision petitioner for taking cognizance under Sections 379, 403, 406, 468, and 506 of the IPC-1860 with the allegations that the revision petitioner was Assistant Statistical Officer posted in Women's Child Welfare Office, Berkshire District, Shahjapur in the year 2014-15. Complainant/ Respondent No.2 was unemployed at that time. Revision Petitioner demanded Rs.1,58,000/- from the Complainant/ Respondent No.2 at the Assurance of arranging a job. Complainant/Respondent No. 2 arranged an amount of Rs.1,18,000 and deposited in the account of Revision Petitioner maintained at Branch Shahjapur of Punjab National Bank and promised to pay rest of the amount on securing the job. The Revision Petitioner asked the Complainant/ accused to provide his Passbook, cheque-book, Aadhaar Card and other documents at Bus Stand Shahjapur on 17-08-2015. Complainant/Respondent No.2 reached at the Bus Stand Shahjapur with the documents on 17-08-2015. Revision Petitioner/ accused asked about the documents. He replied that documents are in the bag with motorcycle. Revision Petitioner/ accused told Respondent No.2 to bring the documents through driver of his car. Respondent No.2/ complainant rushed to bring the documents. Respondent No.2/ complainant moved to follow the instructions of revision petitioner/ accused. When he returned then his documents were not found in motorcycle. He inquired about the document from the revision petitioner/ accused and he denied. He filed a complaint in the police station at Kotwali, Shajapur on 18.08.2015. Thereafter he received a notice from a counsel on 01.08.2019 in which factum of dishonored of cheque of Rs.5 lacs was mentioned and the details of the cheque were the same that were stolen on 18.08.2015. He replied the notice and filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shajapur on 16.12.2019. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shajapur took cognizance and committed the case to Sessions Court and session court took cognizance and framed recharge and proceeded to record the evidence.

3. Challenging the framing of charges, Criminal Revision No.5536/2024 has been preferred on the ground that in the complaint to police (A/1) on 18.08.2015 the number of cheques stated to be stolen is not mentioned. It is not mentioned that cheques were blank or bear signature of complainant/respondent no.2. In the complaint dated 18.08.2015 presented before the Bank of India for closing the account (Article-A/2) also the number of cheques is not mentioned. The complaint is a counter blast of filing case under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed due to dishonour of cheque of Rs.5 lacs amount. The sole testimony of complainant is not sufficient for framing of charges. Only xerox copy of the document have been marked and xerox copy is not admissible in evidence. Trial court have not taken into consideration the factum mentioned in complaint that earlier Rs.2 lacs were borrowed that amount was returned but thereafter, complainant/ respondent no.2 turned eyes and denied to repay the amount of Rs. 5 lacs and the impugned order is not speaking and prayed for discharge from charges framed under sections 379, 403, 468 of the IPC, 1860 vide impugned order dated 15.10.2025.

4. CRR No.1211/2025 is preferred being aggrieved by order dated 5.3.2025 in ST No.250/2023 where by the application under the proviso of section 202 (2) of the Cr.P.C. 1973 (Annexure-A/5) for not permitting the witness oth

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(MP) 743

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
GAJENDRA SINGH, J.
Vipin Shrivastav – Petitioner
Versus
The State of M. P. And Others – Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 5536 of 2024 With Criminal Revision No. 1211 of 2025
Decided On : 05-01-2026

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What is the standard for framing charges or discharging an accused under Section 227 CrPC?

5. Is examination of all witnesses cited in a complaint a condition precedent for cognizance in a case exclusively triable by the Sessions Court?

6. In a Sessions trial instituted on a complaint, is the prosecution barred from examining witnesses not examined under Sections 200/202 CrPC?

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(MP) 743

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDOREGAJENDRA SINGH, J.Vipin Shrivastav – Petitioner Versus The State of M. P. And Others – Respondents Criminal Revision No. 5536 of 2024 With Criminal Revision No. 1211 of 2025Decided On : 05-01-2026

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What is the standard for framing charges or discharging an accused under Section 227 CrPC?

5. Is examination of all witnesses cited in a complaint a condition precedent for cognizance in a case exclusively triable by the Sessions Court?

6. In a Sessions trial instituted on a complaint, is the prosecution barred from examining witnesses not examined under Sections 200/202 CrPC?

Cases Referred (6)

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
GAJENDRA SINGH, J.
Vipin Shrivastav – Petitioner
Versus
The State of M. P. And Others – Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 5536 of 2024 With Criminal Revision No. 1211 of 2025
Decided On : 05-01-2026