IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA

nd

ON THE 22 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 33089 of 2018 PRAMOD KUMAR DHABLE AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR AND OTHERS Appearance:

Mr. Arun Kumar Paterya - Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Satendra Singh Sikarwar - Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.

ORDER Present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking following reliefs:-

"अतएव िनवेदन है (cid:11)क, (cid:13)ाथ(cid:16)गण क(cid:19) ओर से (cid:13)(cid:23)तुत यािचका

(cid:23)वीकार कर (cid:28)व(cid:29)ान अधीन(cid:23)थ (cid:31)यायालय को यह िनद(cid:34)श देने क(cid:19) कृपा कर(cid:38) (cid:11)क वे (cid:28)वशेष (cid:13)करण (cid:40)मांक-'30/10 एवं (cid:28)वशेष (cid:13)करण (cid:40)मांक-32/2012 म(cid:38) सभी आरोपीगण को समान आशय क(cid:19) धाराओ ं म(cid:38) आरोप (cid:28)वरिचत कर (cid:28)विध अनुसार (cid:13)करण का (cid:28)वचारण कर(cid:38)।"

A perusal of the record reveals that, in an earlier round of litigation (Criminal Revision No. 54 of 2015) filed by the same parties, the relief sought by counsel for the petitioner was already put to rest by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while disposing of the matter on 11.05.2016, in the following manner:-

"....

2. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there was a police case as well as a complaint filed against the applicants and a police case was registered as a Special Case No.32/2012, whereas the complaint case was registered as Special Case No.30/2010. The trial Court has framed the charges against the applicants in the present case, which arose from police case. When the charges are to be framed then evidence collected by the prosecution should be considered by the trial court. After considering the evidence collected by the prosecution, it appears that there is no illegality committed by the trial Court in framing various charges against the applicants, hence, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order relating to framing of the charges.

3. However, it appears that while closing the order, it was directed by the trial Court that eight accused persons of Special Case No.30/2010 shall be tried in the case and a joint trial will be done. However, according to the provisions of Section 210 Sub-Sections 2 and 3 of the Cr.P.C., if a police case is filed then proceeding of the complaint case may be stayed and where it is found that evidence is different then both the cases should be tried simultaneously by considering them as the police case. Both the trial may be proceeded simultaneously but these provisions do not permit a joint trial of the cases. In the present case, eight accused persons, who were called by the trial court in a complaint case have to face the trial on the basis of evidence recorded in the complaint, whereas if trial is made joint then evidence collected in the complaint case would be affected by the evidence collected by the police in the charge-sheet. Hence, that portion of the order appears to be against the settled principle of law.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid discussions, when no duplication of trial should be done, it is directed that the operation of the order dated 19.11.2014 relates to joint trial of Special Case Nos.32/2012 and 30/2012 is concerned, the same is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to pass an order either to stay the complaint case and the applicants be prosecuted in the police case or a simultaneous proceeding be initiated against the applicants in both the cases Joint trial cannot be done. Hence the trial Court shall p ass a fresh order relating to joint trial and if required, separate charges shall be framed against various accused persons in Special Case No.30/2012.

5. Copy of the order be sent to the concerned Court for information and compliance."

Thus, there seems to be no necessity to go into the merits of the case again, as