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

rd

ON THE 3 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 7518 of 2024 SMT BILKIS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Mudit Goswami- Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Mohit Shivhare - Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State.

Shri Sankalp Sharma - Advocate for respondent [R-2].

ORDER This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 19.01.2024 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, in Criminal Revision No. 368/2023, arising out of the order dated 21.09.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior, in RCT No. 3290/2023. The Revisional Court allowed the revision, thereby reversing the order passed by the learned JMFC, Gwalior whereby the petitioner was discharged from the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The facts in brief are that the complainant/respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint alleging that she had agreed to purchase a residential house owned by the petitioner, situated at Ayodhya Nagri, Chiraiyo Ka Pura, Gwalior, admeasuring 1,000 square feet, for a total consideration of Rs.

29,25,000/-. An agreement to sell was executed between the parties on 30.05.2022, pursuant to which the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as earnest money, with a stipulation that the sale deed would be executed within three months. It is further alleged that on 21.06.2022, the complainant paid an additional amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-, and on 06.08.2022, she paid Rs. 7,00,000/- to one Smt. Bilkis. On the same date, another agreement was executed, acknowledging receipt of a total amount of Rs. 11,50,000/- and stipulating that the remaining amount would be paid within one month, and the sale deed would be executed within the said period. According to the complainant, despite the expiry of the stipulated period and repeated requests, the petitioner neither executed the sale deed nor refunded the amount received and continued to delay the matter on one pretext or another. Consequently, she lodged a complaint seeking legal action. On the basis of the oral complaint, the police registered FIR No. 962/2022 for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court, after taking cognizance and at the stage of framing of charge, considered an application under Section 239 CrPC filed by the petitioner seeking discharge. Upon hearing both parties and considering the material on record, the Trial Court allowed the application and discharged the petitioner, holding that no offence under Section 406 IPC was made out. Aggrieved thereby, the complainant preferred a criminal revision before the Revisional Court, which was allowed, setting aside the discharge order passed by the Trial Court. Challenging the legality and propriety of the order passed by the Revisional Court, the present petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither the written complaint nor the FIR discloses any material evidence to establish the petitioner’s complicity in the alleged offence. It is contended that the Revisional Court, while allowing the revision, failed to consider the limited scope of revision under Section 397 CrPC, which is confined to examining the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence, or order, or the regularity of proceedings, and does not authorize the Revisional Court to act as an appellate forum to reappreciate evidence. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., (2001) 9 SCC 631, wherein it was held that the revisionary power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine or casual manner, and the High Court or Sessions Court cannot appreciate evidence