Vipin Shrivastav vs State Of M. P. - 2026 Supreme(MP) 744

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 Section 227, the Judge must sift the evidence to determine if there is sufficient ground for proceeding. If two views are possible and one gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge is empowered to discharge the accused. However, where materials disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court is justified in framing a charge. (Paras 12, 13)

(B) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 231 - Examination of witnesses in Session Trial - Scope of evidence - Examination of all witnesses cited in a complaint is not a condition precedent for taking cognizance or issuing process. Under Section 231, the court is required to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. This right extends to producing witnesses during the trial who were not named in the complaint/charge-sheet or whose statements were not recorded under Section 200 or 202, provided the evidence is relevant to the facts of the case. (Para 15)

Facts of the case:
A complainant alleged that an official demanded money for arranging a job. While the complainant was retrieving documents, including a passbook and cheque-book, as instructed by the accused, the documents were stolen from a motorcycle. Subsequently, a cheque belonging to the stolen set was dishonored. Charges were framed under Sections 379, 403, and 468 of the IPC. The accused challenged the framing of charges and the trial court's order allowing the examination of witnesses who were not produced during the preliminary inquiry stage before the Magistrate.

Findings of Court:
The material on record, including the complainant's statement and supporting documents, is sufficient to raise "grave suspicion" for the purpose of framing charges. Furthermore, the prosecution is not restricted to examining only those witnesses whose statements were recorded under Section 200 or 202 of the CrPC; the trial court may summon any witness whose evidence is relevant to the case.

Issues: (i) Whether the allegations in the complaint and accompanying documents satisfy the standard of "grave suspicion" for framing charges under Sections 379, 403, and 468 of the IPC? (ii) Whether the prosecution is precluded from examining witnesses during a session trial who were not examined under Section 200 or 202 of the CrPC?

Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of framing charges, the court must apply its judicial mind to determine if the commission of the offence was possible based on "grave suspicion" rather than mere suspicion. In session trials, Section 231 of the CrPC mandates that the court take all evidence produced by the prosecution, meaning the court is not confined to witnesses examined during the preliminary inquiry.

Result: Both criminal revisions dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Criminal revision against framing of charges under IPC for cheating and forgery in a job scam complaint. (Para 1 , 2 )

2. Dispute over insufficient evidence for framing charges and admissibility of witnesses not examined in preliminary inquiry. (Para 3 , 4 , 11 )

3. Both revisions dismissed — Framing of charges upheld and prosecution permitted to examine all relevant witnesses at trial. (Para 19 )

4. Whether the allegations and statement under Section 200 CrPC satisfy the standard of 'grave suspicion' for framing charges under Sections 379, 403, 468 IPC?

Yes. At the prima facie stage, the complaint and documents are sufficient to raise grave suspicion for framing charges. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 )

5. Whether in a sessions trial on a complaint, the prosecution can examine witnesses not examined under Sections 200 or 202 CrPC?

Yes. Section 231 CrPC permits examination of all such evidence as may be produced; there is no restriction to only those examined earlier. (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) 744

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

Framing of charges requires 'grave suspicion' rather than mere suspicion. In session trials, Section 231 CrPC allows the prosecution to examine any relevant witness, regardless of whether they were examined during the preliminary inquiry stages under Section 200 or 202 CrPC.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Whether the allegations and statement under Section 200 CrPC satisfy the standard of 'grave suspicion' for framing charges under Sections 379, 403, 468 IPC?

5. Whether in a sessions trial on a complaint, the prosecution can examine witnesses not examined under Sections 200 or 202 CrPC?

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(MP) 744

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

Framing of charges requires 'grave suspicion' rather than mere suspicion. In session trials, Section 231 CrPC allows the prosecution to examine any relevant witness, regardless of whether they were examined during the preliminary inquiry stages under Section 200 or 202 CrPC.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Whether the allegations and statement under Section 200 CrPC satisfy the standard of 'grave suspicion' for framing charges under Sections 379, 403, 468 IPC?

5. Whether in a sessions trial on a complaint, the prosecution can examine witnesses not examined under Sections 200 or 202 CrPC?

Cases Referred (5)

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