Modification of signed judgments is strictly limited under law, but courts can allow leniency in exceptional cases impacting parties' rights.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH th ON THE 30 OF JUNE, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 28017 of 2025 ALLIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED THROUGH DIRECTOR ASHOK KUMAR KHOSLA AND OTHERS Versus M/S PEOPLES GENERAL HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS THROUGH AUTHORISED SIGNATORY COL. ASHOK KUMA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ankur Mody - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Vivek Khedkar - Senior Advocate assisted with Shri Nakul Khedkar - Advocate for respondent No.1.

Shri Praveen Kumar Newaskar - Advocate for the respondent No.2.

Heard on: 26/06/2025 Order Delivered: 30/06/2025 ORDER The petitioners have filed this instant petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 528 of BNSS seeking modification/clarification of order dated 12.06.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.41350/2023 and the following reliefs have been sought:-

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VANDANA "a) Modify the impugned judgment/order dated 12-06-2025 (uploaded on 13- 06-2025) in MCRC No. 41350/2023 by substituting the date “25-06-2025” with any convenient date on or after 25-07-2025 for the appearance of the Petitioners before the learned Trial Court;

b) Clarify that, if any application for anticipatory bail is filed by the Petitioners in the captioned matter, the competent court shall entertain and decide such application on its own merits in accordance with law, unaffected by the impugned judgment/order;

and c) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."?

2. The counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that M.Cr.C.

No.41350/2023 was preferred by the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of complaint under Section 449 of the Companies Act, 2013 filed by the respondent No.1, wherein the learned trial Court took cognizance vide order dated 23.05.2022 and subsequently on account of non- appearance of the petitioners in the said proceedings, issued arrest warrant against petitioner No.2 and directed for issuance of bailable warrant against the petitioner no.1 vide order dated 12.07.2023. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that in the questioned M.Cr.C. No.41350/2023 initially, the interim stay was granted vide order dated 20.09.2023 thereafter, the matter was heard and reserved for judgment on 29.04.2025 and the final order/judgment was delivered/uploaded on the website of this Court on 12.06.2025 and by partly allowing the petition the impugned order dated 12.07.2023 was quashed and the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court on 25.06.2025 and on such further dates as may be fixed by the trial Court and the learned trial has been directed to proceed in the matter expeditiously.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VANDANA

3. The counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits that since the judgment was reserved on 29.04.2025 and came to be uploaded only on 12.06.2025 the petitioners could not place before this Hon'ble Court the fact that the petitioner No.2 is a citizen and permanent resident of United States of America and he is in his seventies and in frailing health condition and therefore, likely to suffer grave hardship if he is to appear before the trial Court on 25.06.2025 in such a short notice, considering that the judgment was uploaded on 13.06.2025. That apart, the counsel for the petitioners submits that appropriate modification/clarification in the order dated 12.06.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.41350/2023 also deserves to be issued, that in case any application for anticipatory bail is filed by the petitioners in the captioned matter, the competent court shall entertain and decide such application on its own merits in accordance with law unaffected by the impug