IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY ON THE 16^th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2277/2014 SMT. VIMLA JAIN VS.

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance :

Petitioner by Shri Sourabh Shrivastava – Advocate.

Respondent No.1/State by Shri Ashish Kurmi – Panel Lawyer. Respondents No.2 to 5 by Shri Kailash Deo Singh – Advocate.

............................................................................................................................

Reserved on : 25.08.2025 Delivered on : 16.09.2025

ORDER

The matter was heard finally on 25.08.2025 and today the order is being delivered.

2. This revision petition has been filed under Section 397(1) read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity “Cr.P.C.”) by the petitioner (victim/first informant before the trial Court) assailing the order dated 27.08.2014 passed by learned XII Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No.100/2014 whereby the learned appellate Court has affirmed the order dated 30.11.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur in Criminal Case No. 15777/2010 allowing an application under section 321 of Cr.P.C. filed by the Public Prosecutor permitting withdrawal from the prosecution of respondents No.

2 to 5 (accused before the trial Court).

3. The encapsulated facts, which would lead to a decisive conclusion, are that on 13.10.2010 the petitioner had lodged an FIR against respondents No.2 to 5 with respect to the offences punishable under sections 294, 323, 323 r/w 34, 506 of IPC at Police Station, Garha, District Jabalpur.

3.1 After due investigation, a final report was submitted to the trial Court on 13.12.2010. The learned trial Court proceeded with the trial, framed the charges against respondents No.2 to 5 on 03.08.2011 and case was fixed for recording of the prosecution evidence on 28.9.2011. However, the prosecution could not produce any witness on nine sequential dates fixed for hearing.

3.2 On 06.09.2013 examination-in-chief of the petitioner/victim Vimla Jain (PW1) and witness Usha Patel (PW2) was recorded and their cross-examination was deferred at the instance of respondent No. 2 to 5/accused. On the next date of hearing on 20.09.2013 both witnesses were present in the trial Court but cross-examination was not completed by the defence counsel and case was adjourned. On the adjourned date i.e. 17.10.2013 again both witnesses were present but respondents No. 2 to 5 had again sought an adjournment. On the next date i.e. 12.11.2013 witness Vimla Jain (PW1) appeared for her cross-examination but it could not be completed by the counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 to 5 and the witnesses were bound over for the next date of hearing fixed for 5.12.2013. 3.3 Prior to the date of hearing i.e. 5.12.2013, on 30.11.2013 in National Lok-Adalat, the Assistant Public Prosecutor (ADPO) who was In-charge of the case, filed an application under Section 321 of Cr.P.C. submitting that vide order No. One.35-279/2004/2/C-2, Bhopal dated 04.10.2013, the State Government has directed to withdraw this case in public interest.

3.4 Learned trial Court has, at the request of the Assistant Public Prosecutor, taken the case for hearing and allowed the said application for withdrawal from prosecution and consequently, acquitted the respondents No.2 to 5 vide order dated 30.11.2013.

3.5 Thereafter, the petitioner being a victim, preferred an appeal under the proviso to section 372 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 30.11.2013. The learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal concluding that the case was withdrawn as per the guidelines issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh and also held that the provisions of section 321 of Cr.P.C. do not provide for prior notice to the victim or complainant and thereby giving opportunity of hearing. The learned appellate Court has affirmed the order of