IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

th

ON THE 11 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 42666 of 2023 SURENDRA AND OTHERS Versus BRAJESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sameer Kumar Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Samar Ghuraiya - Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.2/State.

Shri Dharmendra Singh Chauhan - Advocate for the respondent [R-1].

ORDER This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 02.09.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Guna, in Cr.R. No. 516/2023, whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the criminal revision preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 28.07.2023 passed by the learned JMFC, Guna, in UNCR No. 4978/2023. By the impugned order dated 28.07.2023, the learned JMFC had allowed the application filed under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. by Respondent No. 1.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned trial Court, before allowing the application, has failed to consider that the present complainant has not complied with the mandatory provisions of Section

154(1) and Section 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). It is submitted that the complaints were made by the complainant to the police only one day prior to the filing of the present case before the learned trial Court and without awaiting any action from the police, the complainant, in a hurried manner, approached the learned trial Court. Further, the learned trial Court, without calling for any status report and properly examining the averments made in the complaint, directly ordered registration of an FIR. In view of the above, it is submitted that the impugned order is per se illegal and deserves to be set aside.

3. It is further submitted that, according to the complaint, it is alleged that Krishanpal is the real brother of the complainant Brajesh, and the accused Surendra impersonated Krishanpal as Brajesh to execute a sale deed in his name. The complainant became aware of the alleged incident on 25.07.2023 and immediately lodged complaints with Police Station Cantt., the Superintendent of Police, Guna, and the Collector, Guna. Thereafter, on 26.07.2023, a complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was filed. The filing section, on 26.07.2023, forwarded the matter for hearing to the concerned court on 28.07.2023. On 28.07.2023 itself, without obtaining a police report or ensuring compliance with Section 154(3) of Cr.P.C., the learned trial Court passed an order directing registration of the FIR. Aggrieved by the same, the present petitioners preferred a revision before the learned Revisional Court, registered as Criminal Revision No. 98/2023. The learned Revisional Court, however, without properly appreciating the facts, dismissed the revision vide impugned order dated 02.09.2023.

4. It is submitted that the learned trial Court ought to have called for the status report from the concerned police station before passing the order dated 28.07.2023. This principle has been specifically considered by the Coordinate Bench in Jyoti Hardia (Smt.) and Anr. Vs. Anant Haritwal and Anr., reported in (2017) 1 JLJ 175.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 submits that the allegations leveled against the present petitioners are of a cognizable nature. It is contended that there is no necessity to call for a status report under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in directing the registration of an FIR vide order dated 28.07.2023. In view of the above, it is prayed that the present petition be dismissed. To support his submissions, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in 2008 (2) SCC 409.

6. On careful consideration of the submissions advanced by