IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH ON THE 11^th OF DECEMBER, 2025 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5002 of 2024 AJAY JAIN Versus RAZAMOHAMMAD -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance:

Shri Vivek Dalal - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Kanhaiya Lal Jat – Advocate for the respondent No.1.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reserved on : 02.12.2025 Pronounced on : 11.12.2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER

This criminal revision under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Code") is preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 09.08.2024 in CRR No.19/2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Badnawar, District: Dhar arising out of order dated 04.07.2023 in URC No.25/2021 by JMFC, Badnawar, Dhar whereby setting aside the order dated 04.07.2023 and remanded the matter back to the trial Court to pass a fresh order after providing the opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

2. The facts in brief are that the respondent filed a complaint (Annexure P-15) against the 26 proposed accused including the present revision petitioner for taking congnizance of offences punishable under Sections 420, 367, 368 r/w Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code alleging that the government land have been mutated in their names and the same are being alienated by issuing advertisement. The land was mentioned as Survey Nos. 2596, 2597, 2598, 2626, 2627, 2628, 2629, 2630 and 2979/2121 total admeasuring 10.280 hectares and Survey Nos.2624, 2625 admeasuring total 2.754 hectare are situated at Village Badnawar, District Dhar of Patwari Halka No.15, Badnawar, District Dhar. Vide order dated 04.07.2023 JMFC, Badnawar, District Dhar dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code. The order of JMFC, Dhar was challenged through CRR No.19/2023 and the Additional Sessions Judge, Badnawar, Dhar allowed the revision to the extent as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. Challenging the order, this revision petition has been preferred on the ground that revision petitioner/ proposed accused were not provided opportunity of hearing before the Additional Sessions Judge, hence, the order suffers from illegality.

3. Counsel for the respondent/complainant have opposed the revision petition raising the contention that there is no provision that proposed accused be provided any opportunity of hearing. He prays for dismissal of present revision.

4. Heard both the parties and perused the record.

5. In this case it is not in dispute that the notice was not issued to any of the proposed accused including the present revision petitioner. To answer the question raised in this revision petition, this Court is reproducing the para 53 of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia & Anr. vs. Shaileshbai Mohanbhai Patel & Ors. [(2012) 10 SCC 517]. For ready reference, para 53 is reproduced below:-

53. We are in complete agreement with the view expressed by this Court in Sundarrajan v. R. Vidhya Sekar, (2004) 13 SCC 472, Raghu Raj Singh Rousha v. Shivam Sundaram Promoters (P) Ltd., (2009) 2 SCC 363 and N. Santhanam v. K. Elangovan, (2012) 12 SCC 321. We hold, as it must be, that in a revision petition preferred by complainant before the High Court or the Sessions Judge challenging an order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Code at the stage under Section 200 or after following the process contemplated under Section 202 of the Code, the accused or a person who is suspected to have committed crime is entitled to hearing by the revisional court. In other words, where complaint has been dismissed by the Magistrate under Section 203 of the Code, upon challenge to the legality of the said order being laid by the complainant in a