IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1580 of 2025 HIMANSHU Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Yogesh Kumar Gupta - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Rahul Solanki - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.

Shri Piyush Goyal - Advocate for the respondent [OBJ].

(Heard on: 23.01.2026)

(Delivered on: 28.01.2026)

ORDER This Criminal Revision under Section 438 r/w Section 442 of the BNSS, 2023/section 397 r/w 401 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 is preferred challenging the legality of the order dated 04.03.2025 passed in S.T.No.25/2025 by the 7th ASJ, Indore whereby the charges under Section

64(2) of BNS, 2023 has been framed against the revision petitioner.

02. Facts of the case in brief are that the revision petitioner is the uncle of the complainant/victim Rahul Shukla. There is a family disputed between revision petitioner-Himanshu and victim Rahul Shukla. On 31.08.2024 at 1.45 am the First Information Report at crime No.89/2024 was recorded at Police Station Malharganj, Indore on the intimation of Rahul Shukla against unknown persons under Section 109, 3(5) of BNS, 2023. After the investigation, it was uncovered that the revision petitioner Himanshu Shukla contacted Faran and Irfan, who contacted Roshan Nepali & Arslan @ Assu and asked to commit murder of Rahul Shukla on the promise to pay Rs.50,000/-. Roshan Nepali and Arslan @ Assu collected necessary information and on 30.08.2024 around 8.30 pm at Ithwari Bazaar, Indore, they assaulted Rahul Shukla with knife and razor. On completion of investigation, final report for offence under Sections 109, 3(5) of BNS, 2023 was submitted against 5 accused persons including the revision petitioner. The trial Court framed charges under Section 61(2) of BNS, 2023.

03. Challenging the framing of charges, this revision petitioner is preferred on the ground that prima-facie from the FIR it is disclosed that the petitioner is not involved in commission of the alleged offence. Neither the revision petitioner/accused was present on the place of the incident nor any description of the revision petitioner/accused is mentioned in the FIR. No incriminating material against the revision petitioner could be collected. From the statement of the injured recorded on 01.09.2024, the investigating officer made suspicion upon the revision petitioner/accused on account of previous family dispute. Earlier the petitioner/accused opened a cafe in the name of Tea Cigar at 146, Aada Bazar, Pandrinath Path, Ganga Niwas, District Indore, where the co-accused Farhan was working as Manager, therefore, conversation between Farhan and the revision petitioner is natural.

04. It is further argued that the trajectory report of call details recorded for the period of 30.07.2024 to 09.09.2024 reveals that the revision petitioner and Farhan remained in touch at around 229 times, but it cannot be said that what conversation has been taken place between them. The Kaif of aforesaid sim No.909966307 has not been collected to demonstrate that the aforesaid sim belongs to the petitioner/accused. Injured /victim - Rahul Shukla sustained only two injuries which is not sufficient to frame the charge under Section 109 and 3(5) of BNS, 2023. The wife of the petitioner/accused lodged first information report at crime No.864/2023 for offence under Section 354(C), 354(D), 294, 506/34, 509 of IPC, 1860 and Section 66-E and 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000 against the complainant/injured and hence the revision petitioner has been roped in the present crime only to settle the dispute.

05. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the revision petition.

06. Learned counsel for victim/injured opposed revision petition.

Counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shoyeb Raja vs. State of M.P. & Ors. (Neutral citation 2024 OMSC

731) in support of his contentions.

07. Heard and perused the case diary as well as the trajectory o