IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA

th

ON THE 16 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 46353 of 2021 KANHAIYA JHA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ashok Jain - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Shiv Pratap Singh Kushwah- Advocate for the respondents No. 2 to 5.

Shri Abhishek Bhadoriya - PP for the State.

ORDER

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

for quashing/setting aside the order dated 09.08.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambah District Morena, in Criminal Revision No.268/2021 and also the order dated 22.10.2020 passed by the JMFC, Ambah, district Morena in Criminal Complaint No.501/2020.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the son of the petitioner namely-

Himanshu Jha (now deceased) has gone to attend a Lagan ceremony at his friend's house namely- Rahul Singh Tomar on 19.02.2020. He attended the ceremony on 20.2.2020 and on the request of his friend Rahul, he stayed there to attend the marriage also to be held on 26.02.2020. The deceased son of the petitioner was going to return home on 28.02.2020. But, in the night of

27.02.2020, the accused Rahul Singh Tomar along with other other co- accused persons under the conspiracy and with common intention to kill him, committed murder of the deceased and thereafter they made a concocted story that the deceased son of the petitioner was found in suspicious condition in a park. The deceased was admitted in the hospital. But, after long treatment he died.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner/complainant filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. accompanied with the application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. seeking direction for registration of FIR bearing criminal complain No.501/2020. But, the JMFC, dismissed his application filed under Sectin 156(3) of the Cr.P.C vide order dated 31.10.2020. The JMFC dismissed under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. with observations that the present complaint can be examined by this Court to find conclusion of the incident, hence, no police investigation or inquiry is required by the police.

4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 31.10.2020, the petitioner filed a revision before the Sessional Court under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. and the Sessions Court after hearing the parties, dismissed the revision holding the impugned order challenged therein is an interlocutory order and therefore the revision against the interlocutory order is not maintainable. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner has filed this petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the sessions courts is arbitrary and contrary to the law and facts. The aforesaid order has been passed without application of judicial mind.

6. In the case of Raghu Raj Singh Rausha Vs. Shiva Sundaram Promoters Private Ltd Manu/Sc 357/2009, it has been held that “ The Criminal Revision is maintainable against an order rejection of the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. He also placed reliance on the case Sakiri Vs.

State of UP 2007 AIOL 1861.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the trial court also committed grave error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. wrongly holding that present complaint can be examined by this Court to find conclusion of the incident, hence, no police investigation or inquiry is required by the police. The trial court committed error because in the present case, police investigation and custodial interrogation is very much required to collect the evidence and find the truth of the case. The mens rea and intention can only be proved by the police investigation. The accused persons have committed the murder of the son of the petitioner under a conspiracy and in a planned way. The accused persons also in connivance with the competent police authorities have tried to erase the important evidence, therefore, police intervention is