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

th

ON THE 13 OF OCTOBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 8952 of 2015 VINOD BOHARE Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Rajesh Kumar Shukla - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Samar Ghuraiya Dy Ga appearing on behalf of Advocate General.

ORDER The petitioner is filing the present petition invoking the inherent powers of this Hon’ble Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 01.08.2015 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, District Bhind, in Criminal Revision No. 118/2015, whereby the order dated 15.06.2015 passed by the learned CJM, Bhind in Criminal Case No. 966/2008 dismissing the petitioner’s application under Section 217 Cr.P.C. was affirmed.

2. As per prosecution story, the complainant has lodged a report against the petitioner that he had purchased a tractor from the agency run by the petitioner. According to the complainant, he deposited an amount of Rs. 3,21,000/- with the owner of the tractor agency. It is further alleged that even after depositing the amount, the petitioner forcibly took back the tractor along with a cultivator nearly four years ago and did not return the same. On the basis of the said complaint, Police Station Dehat Kotwali registered Crime No. 78/2008 for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. After completing the investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhind. The learned CJM framed charges under Sections 420 and 406 IPC.

3. The petitioner challenged the framing of charges by filing Criminal Revision No. 227/2009, which was allowed on 17.03.2010, and the matter was remitted back for reconsideration.

4. The petitioner then moved a discharge application before the trial court. The application was rejected on the ground that charges were already framed. This order was challenged in Criminal Revision No. 882/2011, which was allowed on 17.11.2011, and again the matter was remanded. The trial court then reconsidered the matter and held that no prima facie case under Section 420 IPC was made out, but it framed charge under Section 406 IPC. This order was again challenged by the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 329/2010, which was allowed. This Court set aside the charge under Section 406 IPC and directed that if any other charge is made out, it may be framed. In compliance of the order, the trial court passed an order on 02.03.2015 holding that prima facie a charge under Section 403 IPC was made out. Accordingly, the trial court framed charge under Section 403 IPC on 07.04.2015.

5. After the fresh charge was framed, the petitioner filed an application under Section 217 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of all prosecution witnesses so that the evidence may be recorded afresh because the nature of the charge had changed. However, the application was dismissed by the learned trial court on 15.06.2015. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed Criminal Revision No. 118/2015 before the Sessions Court. The revisional court affirmed the order of the trial court and dismissed the revision petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that after several rounds of revision, the originally framed charges under Sections 420 and 406 were set aside. A new and distinct charge under Section 403 IPC was framed on 07.04.2015. This charge is materially different in nature and ingredients from the earlier charges. Therefore, in the interest of justice, evidence recorded on earlier charges cannot simply be relied upon without giving the petitioner a proper opportunity to cross-examine or re-examine witnesses in light of the changed charge. It has been argued that the Section 217 Cr.P.C. provides that whenever a charge is altered or added, the accused has a right to recall or re-summon witnesses. It has further been argued that denying an opportunity to recall witnesses after al