IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5560 of 2025 DR MADHU JAIN Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Naresh Piplodiya - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Rajendra Singh Suryavanshi - GA for the State.

(Heard on: 14.01.2026)

(Delivered on: 19.01.2026)

ORDER The Police Station- City Kotwali, District Mandsaur has reported that they have not collected any footage of C.C.T.V. installed at RK Hospital Nayapura Road, District- Mandsaur.

With the consent of both the parties heard finally at the stage of motion.

This criminal revision is preferred being aggrieved by order dated

11.03.2025 in Regular RCT No.235/2024 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandsaur whereby the charges under sections 294, section 506-Part-II, 427 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been framed against the present revision petitioner in a case arising out of crime No.636/2023 registered at Police Station- City Kotwali, District Mandsaur.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that, revision petitioner is daughter-in-

law of Dr. R.D. Jain and Smt. Kamla Jain and runs a hospital in the title of R.K. Hospital at Nayapura Road, District Mandsaur (M.P.). A complaint was made through Vishal Pandey PRO of R.K. Hospital at Nayapura Road, District Mandsaur (M.P.) regarding the incident dated 21.01.2023 in which it was alleged that revision petitioner along with Firoz S/o Munna Pathan, Gudi Bi and Moti entered the hospital premises by breaking the lock and uttered obscene words and caused damages to the hospital property including sonography machine and extended threat to kill. The incident happened due to the dispute between husband of the revision petitioner and revision petitioner.

3. The offence under sections 454, 294, 506, 427 read with section 34 of the IPC was registered against four named and other persons including present revision petitioner. After investigation final report was submitted.

4. The trial court has framed charges under Sections 454, 294, 506, and 427 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The present petition challenges the framing of these charges in relation to the alleged incident dated 21.11.2023 occurred between 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.

5. Challenging the framing of charges this revision petition is preferred on the ground that FIR does not mentions any such abusing words was uttered. It does not reflect any imminent danger was caused. This revision petition is preferred only to humiliate the revision petitioner who herself is a senior doctor. There is no evidence that any damages was caused to the hospital property including sonography machine. Charges have been framed without applying the mind. Nothing has been seized to demonstrate that any damage was caused to the hospital property.

6. Heard.

7. Counsel for the respondent/State opposed the revision petition.

8. Before dealing with the rival contentions, it is appropriate to refer to the scope of exercise of power under section 227 of the Cr.P.C or presently section 250 of the BNSS, 2023. The Apex Court in P.Vijayan vs. State of Kerala and another - (2010) 2 SCC 398, made an in-depth consideration regarding the scope of power under section 227 Cr.P.C and held thus:

“10. Before considering the merits of the claim of both the parties, it is useful to refer to Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which reads as under:

“227. Discharge. — If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.”

If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage he is not to see whether the trial wil