IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA

th

ON THE 7 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 20813 of 2025

VICTIM A

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Ashok Lalwani, Senior Advocate with Shri Aastha Patel, counsel for

petitioner.

Shri Priyank Sandilya, PL for respondent/State.

ORDER medical documents were collected. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet.

The present Miscellaneous Criminal Case has been filed by the

petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita/Section 482 CrPC seeking re-investigation in respect of FIR 472/2022 registered at Police Station Gwarighat, District Jabalpur, for offence punishable under Sections 354-A, 324, 506 and 294 of the Indian

Penal Code.

2. The case of the applicant, in brief, is that on 27.10.2022, she was

subjected to molestation and physical assault by the accused, namely Ajeet Sharma, who is stated to be her cousin. It is alleged that the applicant sustained grievous injuries in the incident and was hospitalized in an unconscious condition. On the basis of the complaint and medical intimation, the aforesaid FIR was registered. During the course of investigation, the statement of the applicant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded and

3. Being dissatisfied with the manner of investigation, the applicant filed an application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur, seeking further investigation on the ground that the investigation was incomplete and biased, particularly alleging non- seizure of weapon used in offence and incorrect narration of facts in the memorandum has been written under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

4. The said application was dismissed by the learned JMFC vide order dated 09.12.2024. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant preferred a criminal revision before the Sessions Court, which too came to be dismissed by order dated 11.04.2025.

5. Assailing the aforesaid orders passed by the courts below, the applicant has approached this Court by way of the present petition seeking re- investigation of the case. Learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the investigation conducted in the present case is unfair, biased and incomplete, thereby vitiating the very foundation of the prosecution. It is contended that the Investigating Officer failed to seize the alleged weapon of offence and submitted a report containing a version contrary to the medical evidence and the statement of the applicant recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

6. It is further argued that despite there being clear medical evidence indicating serious injuries, the Investigating Officer erroneously concluded that the injuries were self-inflicted on the basis of the memorandum which is ex facie perverse and contrary to the record. Learned senior counsel submits that both the learned JMFC as well as the Sessions Court committed an error by mechanically relying upon the police report and by ignoring material evidence placed on record, including the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the medical documents. On the aforesaid grounds, it is prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and a direction for re-investigation be issued in the interest of justice.

7. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State opposes the petition and submits that the investigation has been conducted in accordance with law and no material irregularity has been committed by the Investigating Officer. It is submitted that all relevant evidence was duly considered during investigation and the charge-sheet has already been filed after due application of mind.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any material to indicate that the investigation conducted has resulted in such grave prejudice as would occasion a failure of justice. T