IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR CRR No. 4779 of 2023 (TANMAY KUMAR SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )

Dated : 09-02-2026 Shri Vivek Kumar Choudhary - Advocate (through V.C) Ms. Vipra Kochar Advocate for the applicant.

Ms. Shikha Baghel - Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

Shri Pramod Choubey - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.

This case was reserved for orders on 3/2/2026. While perusing the file for dictating the order, it is seen that the case has to be released and arguments have to be heard again for the reasons that on certain aspect of the Revision both the parties did not argue the main ground of Revision are:

(i) This Revision is directed against the order dated 14.8.2023 passed in S.T No. 1117/2019 passed by learned III Additional Judge to the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal (Crime No. 356/2019) – State v. Tanmay Sharma. By the impugned order the learned Trial Court has framed charges against accused Tanmay Sharma for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C and 66-C and 66-D of Information and Technology Act, 2008.

(ii) The order was challenged on the ground that the above mentioned Sections are not attracted as incident is of 24.3.2016; however, no reasons for delay has been assigned. Earlier compromise proceedings between the parties on 11.8.2016 is not considered. It was not considered that earlier the complainant went to U.K. on study Visa but when he started working there then he was asked to leave the country. Earlier filing of private complaint for the same cause has been suppressed by complainant. Opposite party is trying to blackmail the accused for that purpose video recording and transcription have been filed.

(iii) Earlier accused has filed some documents with application under Section 294 Cr.P.C which has been taken on record. Visa application could not be processed as the documents were not executed properly. Certain data could not be recovered by the Police as laptop of the accused was sent for forensic inquiry but no incriminating data could be recovered from it.

On the other hand learned counsel for respondent had supported the framing of charges.

Both parties have relied upon certain citations of Hon’ble Supreme Court; however, the same are not being mentioned here inasmuch as the case is being released for fresh hearing on the ground:-

(i) multiple documents have been filed by the Revisioner but many of them are 25-50% not readable and the Revisioner has filed typed copy but this Court fails to understand that when the photo copy document is not legible then how typed copy was got typed and how it was self-certified and if the Revisioner, i.e., Accused was in possession of the original/legible copy then they should have been filed and not the document which is non-

readable.

(ii) Some portion of the certain document have been cut from the side may be due to improper photocopy, e.g., in Annexure A-5 page No. 43 is a letter of Police Station Ayodhya Nagar dated 22.5.2018 but it is not legible. Same is the situation at multiple documents, like Annexure A-7 at page No.

47. This document is also not properly photocopied and certain line(s) are missing at the bottom. Similarly from page Nos. 56 to page 59 some photographs have been filed which are almost 97 % black and nothing is visible.

When the Revision is filed against Charge, the Revisioner could have verified the documents very carefully so as to know whether any ground of discharge is made out or not. Similarly documents filed by the Revisioner at page 111/112 are not legible. Same situations continues at page Nos. 119, 120, 123, 124. The documents from page No. 151 to 154 are not legible.

Another point is that vide order dated 11.7.2023 an application filed under Section 294, and 91 Cr.P.C by the accused Tanmay Sharma was allowed by the trial Court but while taking documents on record it was mentioned that on account of judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court at Indore in M.Cr.C No. 25598/20