IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT Indore BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR ON THE 2^nd OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 15286 of 2024 SHAILESH SHROTRIYA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Piyush Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Amit Rawal – Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.

Shri Jay Sharma – Advocate for the respondent [R-2].

ORDER

This petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed feeling aggrieved by the order dated 01.02.2024 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Distt. Ratlam in Cr. R. No. 54/2025, whereby the order dated 07.06.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Distt. Ratlam in RCT No. 900503/2015 was set aside. The learned JMFC, Distt. Ratlam had allowed the application u/S 319 of Cr.P.C. and directed cognizance against respondent no.2.

2. The exposition of facts, giving rise to the present petition, is as under:

(i) The petitioner Shailesh Shrotriya lodged FIR at P.S. Manak Chowk, Distt. Ratlam on 20.12.2014, inter-alia alleging that the Lineman of Electricity Department came to connect the electricity line of his house on 20.12.2014 around 12:30 pm. His neighbor- Hasmukh Bhandari and Arpit Moonat objected. Hasmukh and Arpit abused him in filthy language and assaulted him with slaps and fist blows. He sustained injury on neck and nose. He went inside his house. Hasmukh and Arpit entered his house and threatened to kill him, if he reports the matter to police. On such allegations, the P.S. Manak Chowk registered FIR at Crime no. 922/2014 for offence punishable u/Ss. 294, 323,324, 506 and 34 of IPC against Hansmukh and Arpit. The P.S. Manak Chowk, on completion of investigation, filed final report on 31.12.2014. The trial is underway.

(ii) As informed by the petitioner, the charges were framed on 16.10.2023. The examination-in-chief of complainant Shailesh was recorded on 16.02.2023. The petitioner moved an application u/S. 319 of Cr.P.C., requesting to implead respondent no.2– Prakash as an accused in the trial at RCT No. 900503/2015 (iii) Learned JMFC, Ratlam vide order dated 07.06.2023, allowed the application and directed cognizance of offence punishable u/Ss. 294, 323, 324, 506 and 34 of IPC against proposed accused– Prakash and also to implead Prakash as accused no. 3 in the trial.

(iv) Feeling aggrieved by the order taking cognizance of the JMFC, Ratlam, accused Prakash preferred revision before the Court of Sessions at Ratlam. Learned 1^st ASJ, Ratlam after hearing both the parties, allowed the revision petition and set aside the order dated 07.06.2023 passed by the JMFC, Ratlam vide impugned order dated

01.02.2024 in Cr.R. No. 54/2023.

3. The present petition is filed assailing the impugned order dated

01.02.2024 on the following grounds:

(i) The order dated 01.02.2023 was passed without application of mind and without considering the evidence and documents on record.

(ii) The Revisional Court set aside the order on the basis of presumption that strong prima-facie evidence is not available to implead the respondent no. 2 – Prakash as an accused. The Revisional Court did not consider that the complainant on the date of incident had complained against Prakash Moonat.

(iii) The complainant had submitted written complaint alleging involvement of Prakash Moonat in the incident.

On these grounds, it is requested that the order dated 01.02.2024 passed in Cr.R. No. 54/2023 be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner, in addition to the grounds mentioned in the petition, contended that the trial Court did not commit any mistake in directing cognizance and impleadment of respondent no.2 as an accused on the basis of evidence of the complainant in his examination-in-chief dated 16.02.2023. Learned counsel referred to the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 2014 SC 1400 to buttress his contention that the trial Court need not wait till cross-examination to take cognizance against pr