SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 1688

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Ravindra Singh Sahu – Appellant
Versus
Bhupendra Singh Raghuvanshi – Respondent
MCRC 8333/2017



Advocates:
Vibhor Kumar Sahu,

##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3711

1 MCRC-8333-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

th

ON THE 29 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 8333 of 2017

RAVINDRA SINGH SAHU

Versus

BHUPENDRA SINGH RAGHUVANSHI AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Abhishek Jat - Advocate for petitioner.

ORDER

The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated

07.07.2017 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge,

Ashoknagar in Criminal Revision No. 35/2016, whereby the criminal

revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. The said revision had

been filed challenging the order dated 07.09.2016 passed by the learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ashoknagar, by which the unregistered private

complaint submitted by the petitioner under Section 200 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure was dismissed. Thus, both the aforesaid orders are under

challenge in the present petition.

2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that the agricultural land

belonging to the father of the complainant/applicant is situated at Village

Kherbhan, District Ashoknagar. The complainant is in possession of the said

land and is cultivating and maintaining the same. Several trees of different

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: YOGENDRA

OJHA

Signing time: 1/30/2026

3:39:13 PM

##PAGE2##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3711

2 MCRC-8333-2017

species were planted by the father of the complainant on the said land.

Adjacent to the said agricultural land, a non-metallic road is situated, where

construction work under the Government Scheme Pradhan Mantri Gram

Sadak Yojana was being carried out by the respondents. On the date of the

incident, the respondent persons, along with other associates, illegally

entered upon the land of the complainant and cut down several trees standing

thereon, and also removed and took away the same. Upon receiving

information regarding the said illegal acts, the complainant immediately

reached the spot along with his mother. At that time, the respondents abused

the complainant and his mother in filthy language and also pushed them,

thereby causing insult and criminal intimidation. The complainant reported

the aforesaid incident to the local police authorities; however, no action has

been taken by the police till date. Consequently, the complainant/petitioner

filed a private complaint before the competent Court seeking initiation of

criminal proceedings against the respondents. The learned Trial Court, after

recording the statement of the complainant and after considering the police

report, erroneously concluded that no offence was made out and dismissed

the complaint vide order dated 07.09.2016. Aggrieved by the said order, the

complainant preferred Criminal Revision No. 35/2016 before the Court of

First Additional Sessions Judge, which too came to be dismissed vide order

dated 07.07.2017. Being aggrieved by both the aforesaid orders, the present

petition has been preferred.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders

passed by the Learned Trial Court as well as by the Learned Revisional

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: YOGENDRA

OJHA

Signing time: 1/30/2026

3:39:13 PM

##PAGE3##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3711

3 MCRC-8333-2017

Court are based on arbitrary, perverse and erroneous findings and, therefore,

deserve to be set aside in the interest of justice.

4. It is further submitted that the courts below have failed to appreciate

the evidence and material available on record in its proper perspective and

have dismissed the complaint and revision mechanically without assigning

cogent and sustainable reasons. The Learned Trial Court has disbelieved the

statements of the petitioner and his relatives; however, while doing so, it has

not recorded any specific reasons or findings to justify such disbelief. It is

well settled that rejection of testimony must be supported by logical

reasoning, and in the absence of any such reasoning, the find

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top