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

th

ON THE 19 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 9349 of 2015 MUNALAL RAIKWAR Versus RAM KUMAR TIWARI AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Devenshu Sharma- Advocate for petitioner. Ms Kanchan Sharma- Advocate for respondent.

ORDER This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner challenging Order dated 21.04.2014 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia dismissing the private complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-2), and the revisional order affirming the same passed by Special and Additional Sessions Judge, Datia (Annexure P-1) by order dated 19.06.2015 in Criminal Revision No. 42/2014. The petitioner seeks quashment of both orders and prays for restoration of his private complaint and issuance of directions for registration of FIR against respondent No.1.

2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner was residing as a tenant in the house of Raju Yadav, opposite the house of respondent No.1 and earned his livelihood as a labourer. On 30.01.2013 at about 8:00 a.m., his daughter Ku. Pinki was sweeping in front of their house when respondent No.1 allegedly shouted at her for “blowing dust”. Upon her reply that she was merely sweeping, respondent No.1 allegedly abused and assaulted her. On hearing the cries, petitioner, his wife and other daughter came out, whereupon respondent No.1 allegedly assaulted them and released his pet dog upon them. The petitioner claims that he approached Police Station Datia on the same day, but his complaint was not recorded till 9:00 p.m., forcing him to return home. On 31.01.2013, he submitted a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Datia, pursuant to which medical examination of petitioner and his family was conducted at District Hospital, Datia. Despite medical examination, no FIR was registered, leading to a further representation dated 02.02.2013, which also yielded no result. Consequently, petitioner filed a private complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia under Sections 294, 289, 323 and 324 IPC.

3. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded statements of the complainant and witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., including: Petitioner (Munnalal), his daughter Poonam Kashyap, Pinki Raikwar, Gulab Singh and Raju Yadav After considering the complaint, statements and documents, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C., holding inter alia that there were material contradictions in the statements of witnesses. There was no medical evidence of dog bites on any of the injured persons. The medical slips dated 31.01.2013 did not mention dog bite injuries. The X-ray report of Poonam did not show any fracture, contrary to petitioner’s claim of grievous injury under Section 325 IPC. On the same date i.e., 30.01.2013, respondent No.1 had lodged an FIR against the petitioner alleging assault and threats, indicating that the private complaint was a counterblast. The petitioner preferred a criminal revision challenging dismissal of the complaint. The Revisional Court, after re-appreciation of material, dismissed the revision holding that the Magistrate had correctly appreciated evidence. No prima facie case was made out against respondent No.1. The complaint appeared to be retaliatory in nature. No illegality or perversity was found in the order under Section 203 Cr.P.C.

3. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that both courts below failed to appreciate oral and documentary evidence. The trial court wrongly relied on absence of dog bite evidence. Minor contradictions should not have resulted in dismissal of complaint. The Magistrate ought to have called for X-ray report. On these premises he submits that FIR should have been registered against respondent No.1.

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the entire record including complaint under Section 20