IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA

th

ON THE 13 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 58768 of 2025

RAJENDRA PAWAR

Versus

PRAVIN SAXCENA

Appearance:

Shri Mayank Kumar Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioner.

None for respondent.

ORDER another under Section 311 of CrPC for re-examination of the complainant and that application has been allowed by the trial court and affirmed by the Revisional Court.

This petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 against

the impugned order dated 28.11.2025 passed in CRR No. 758/2025 by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal whereby the Revisional court affirmed the order of the trial Court dated 30-10-2025 by which application of the

respondent under Section 91 and 311 of CR.PC is allowed.

2. As per the facts of the case, the respondent filed a complaint

against the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 which was pending before the trial Court at Bhopal. The case was listed for complainant's evidence on several dates but, the petitioner took time again and again and on 11-07-2023, the complainant was present for evidence but, as the accused and his counsel was not present therefore, right of cross- examination has been closed and the case got listed for accused statement. Meanwhile, the respondent filed two applications one under Section 91 and

3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned trial Court closed the complainant's evidence on 11-07-2023 and after two years the complainant filed an application for permission to record the additional evidence, which is order for review, is not permissible in law. It is further submitted that order passed by the learned trial Court as well as revisional Court is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law and is liable to be quashed because the impugned order deprived all the legal rights of the petitioner.

4. From the perusal of the record as well as impugned order, it appears that opportunity of defence to cross-examine the complainant was closed and thereafter, the complainant filed an additional documentary evidence and also an application under Section 91 and 311 of CRPC. The same was allowed by the trial Court and affirmed by the revisional Court. The trial Court as well as the revisional Court has given proper reasonings while allowing the application of the respondent/complainant. It is mentioned in the order that the petitioner has right to cross-examine the complainant as well as documents adduced by him, which does not fall within the purview of review. Since the petitioner/accused was given a right to cross-examine the respondent, that order does not constitute review of the earlier order.

5. The trial Court as well as the revisional Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned judgment. Therefore, I do not deem it proper to interfere with the well reasoned order of both the courts below.

6. In view of the above, petition stands dismissed.

(B. P. SHARMA)

JUDGE PG