IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5596 of 2025 VISHAL JAISWANI AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Virendra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners through VC.

Shri Rahul Solanki appearing on behalf of Advocate General[r-1].

Shri Awadhesh Pratap Singh Sisodiya, learned counsel for the respondent [COMP]. Heard On:05.12.2025 Delivered On:18.12.2025 ORDER

1. I.A. No.16463/2025, an application filed under section 301(2) of Cr.P.C, 1973/ under Section 338(2) of BNSS, 2023 is presented by the victim, is allowed and he is permitted to assist the public prosecutor through counsel Shri Awadesh Pratap Singh Sisodiya, Advocate.

2. This criminal revision is preferred under Section 442 read with Section 438 of BNSS, 2023 challenging the legality of the order dated 08.11.2025 passed in ST No.696/2025 by 13th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore whereby the charges under Section 420 alternatively 420 r/w 34 of IPC, under Section 420 alternatively 420 r/w 34 of IPC, under Section 419 alternatively 419 r/w 34 of IPC, under Section 420 alternatively 420 r/w 34 of IPC, under Section 467 alternatively 467 r/w 34 of IPC, under Section 468 alternatively 468 r/w 34 of IPC and under Section 471 alternatively 471 r/w 34 of IPC have been framed against the revision petitioners arising out of the Crime No.71/2025 registered at Crime Branch, Indore.

3. Facts in brief are that the complainant Kalga Venkata Naga Shrivaniwas filed a written complaint on 25.02.2025 regarding cheating through impersonation of a woman through marriage proposal and receiving of huge amount. A crime No.71/2025 was registered under Section 419, 420/34 of IPC against Vishal Jaiswani and Simran Jaiswani and the user of bank account in which the amount was transferred. After investigation, evidence regarding forgery was also collected and the name of 3rd accused was ascertained as Love Makhijani and final report was submitted disclosing the offence under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of IPC.

4. The learned trial Court framed the charged as mentioned in para no.1 of this order.

5. Challenging the framing of charges, this criminal revision petition has been filed on behalf of the revision petitioners on the ground that no offence under section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of IPC is made out against them. The learned trial Court has totally failed to consider and appreciate the material facts that the averments made in the complaint, statement of the complainant and other material on record will give the exclusive conclusion and inferences that the entire criminal proceedings is sheer misused and abuse of process of law. The continuance of the proceedings against the revision petitioners will cause miscarriage and failure of justice and valuable rights of the revision petitioner to earn livelihood. The revision petitioners have relied upon Haryana Financial Corporation vs. Jagdamba OIl Mills; AIR 2002 SC 834.

6. Heard.

7. Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer.

8. Counsel for the objector has also opposed the revision petition vehemently.

9. Perused the material filed with the revision petition as well as the case diary made available by the prosecution.

10. Before dealing with the rival contentions, it is appropriate to refer to the scope of exercise of power under section 227 of the Cr.P.C or presently section 250 of the BNSS, 2023. The Apex Court in P.Vijayan vs. State of Kerala and another - (2010) 2 SCC 398, made an in-depth consideration regarding the scope of power under section 227 Cr.P.C and held thus:

“10. Before considering the merits of the claim of both the parties, it is useful to refer to Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which reads as under:

“227. Discharge. — If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge con