Madhya Pradesh High Court
Alliance Industries Limited Through … vs M/S Peoples General Hospital Private … on 30 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13120
1 MCRC-28017-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 30th OF JUNE, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 28017 of 2025
ALLIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED THROUGH DIRECTOR ASHOK
KUMAR KHOSLA AND OTHERS
Versus
M/S PEOPLES GENERAL HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED AND
OTHERS THROUGH AUTHORISED SIGNATORY COL. ASHOK
KUMA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ankur Mody - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Vivek Khedkar - Senior Advocate assisted with Shri Nakul
Khedkar - Advocate for respondent No.1.
Shri Praveen Kumar Newaskar - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
Heard on: 26/06/2025
Order Delivered: 30/06/2025
ORDER
The petitioners have filed this instant petition under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. read with Section 528 of BNSS seeking modification/clarification of
order dated 12.06.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.41350/2023 and the following
reliefs have been sought:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 30-Jun-25
5:20:20 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13120
2 MCRC-28017-2025
“a) Modify the impugned judgment/order dated 12-06-2025
(uploaded on 13- 06-2025) in MCRC No. 41350/2023 by
substituting the date “25-06-2025” with any convenient date on or
after 25-07-2025 for the appearance of the Petitioners before the
learned Trial Court;
b) Clarify that, if any application for anticipatory bail is filed by
the Petitioners in the captioned matter, the competent court shall
entertain and decide such application on its own merits in
accordance with law, unaffected by the impugned judgment/order;
and
c) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”?
2. The counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that M.Cr.C.
No.41350/2023 was preferred by the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
seeking quashment of complaint under Section 449 of the Companies Act,
2013 filed by the respondent No.1, wherein the learned trial Court took
cognizance vide order dated 23.05.2022 and subsequently on account of non-
appearance of the petitioners in the said proceedings, issued arrest warrant
against petitioner No.2 and directed for issuance of bailable warrant against
the petitioner no.1 vide order dated 12.07.2023. It is further submitted on
behalf of the petitioners that in the questioned M.Cr.C. No.41350/2023
initially, the interim stay was granted vide order dated 20.09.2023 thereafter,
the matter was heard and reserved for judgment on 29.04.2025 and the final
order/judgment was delivered/uploaded on the website of this Court on
12.06.2025 and by partly allowing the petition the impugned order dated
12.07.2023 was quashed and the parties were directed to appear before the
trial Court on 25.06.2025 and on such further dates as may be fixed by the
trial Court and the learned trial has been directed to proceed in the matter
expeditiously.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 30-Jun-25
5:20:20 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13120
3 MCRC-28017-2025
3. The counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits that
since the judgment was reserved on 29.04.2025 and came to be uploaded
only on 12.06.2025 the petitioners could not place before this Hon’ble Court
the fact that the petitioner No.2 is a citizen and permanent resident of United
States of America and he is in his seventies and in frailing health condition
and therefore, likely to suffer grave hardship if he is to appear before the trial
Court on 25.06.2025 in such a short notice, considering that the judgment
was uploaded on 13.06.2025. That apart, the counsel for the petitioners
submits that appropriate modification/clarification in the order dated
12.06.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.41350/2023 also deserves to be issued,
that in case any application for anticipatory bail is filed by the petitioners in
the captioned matter, the competent court shall entertain and decide such
application on its own merits in accordance with law unaffected by the
impugned judgement/order as seeking anticipatory bail is the statutory right
of the petitioners. However, the petitioners are apprehensive that in the teeth
of the order dated 12.06.2025, the trial court is unlikely to consider the
anticipatory bail application of the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer as
quoted hereinabove has been made by filing the present petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C/ Section 528 BNSS.
4. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel appearing for
respondent No.1 raises preliminary objection as regards the maintainability
of the present petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. read with Section
528 of BNSS seeking modification/clarification of the order on the following
grounds:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 30-Jun-25
5:20:20 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13120
4 MCRC-28017-2025
(a) Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 specifically bars
alteration or review of a signed judgment or final order disposing of a case
except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error and therefore the instant
petition seeking modification/clarification of order dated 12.06.2025 passed
in M.Cr.C. No.41350/2023 is barred and not maintainable.
(b) The instant application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed
on the strength of power of attorney and the affidavit in support of the
petition has been sworn at Mumbai and the said affidavit is not part of the
present petition as the petition has been drafted and signed by the counsel
and presented at Gwalior. The petition does not bear signatures of the person
swearing the affidavit.
(c) Even otherwise, the M.Cr.C. No.41350/2023 filed by the
petitioners has been partly allowed. The order dated 12.07.2023 passed by
the trial Court issuing arrest warrant against the petitioner No.2 and bailable
warrant against petitioner No.1 is quashed and in case, the petitioners are
having any genuine difficulty in appearing before the trial Court, they are
required to seek the remedy before the learned trial court in terms of various
provisions contained under the Code of Criminal Procedure itself.
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1,
however, fairly submits that he has no serious objection in case some
reasonable enlargement of time is granted to the petitioners to comply with
the order dated 12.06.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.41350/2023 so as to enable
the petitioner No.2 to appear before the trial Court looking to the fact that the
petitioner No.2 is residing outside India and would be required to make
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 30-Jun-25
5:20:20 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13120
5 MCRC-28017-2025
arrangements to travel to India.
6. On the objection of maintainability of the instant M.Cr.C. seeking
modification/clarification of the final order passed in M.Cr.C.
No.41350/2023, the learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Khadkiwala vs.
State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and Anr: (2019) 17 SCC 294 to
contend that under the changed circumstances, the second M.Cr.C. filed
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is maintainable and so far as the objection of
filing the present M.Cr.C. supported by the power of attorney and along with
the affidavit sworn at Mumbai is concerned, the counsel for the petitioners
submits that the same is too technical objection to be considered as, the
original M.Cr.C. No.41350/2023 was also filed on the strength of power of
attorney itself and since the petitioner No.2 is not in India and the petitioner
No.1 is Company, the petition filed on the strength of power of attorney by
the company is maintainable.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. I find much force in the preliminary objection raised by the Senior
Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, as regards the maintainability of
the instant application in view of Section 362 of the Cr.P.C.
Section 362 of Cr.P.C. reads as under:-
362 . Court not to after judgement. Save as otherwise provided by
this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no
Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of
a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or
arithmetical error.”
9. The aforesaid provision has came to be considered by the Hon’ble
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 30-Jun-25
5:20:20 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13120
6 MCRC-28017-2025
Supreme Court in the case of Atul Shukla vs. State of M.P. and Ors.: (2019)
17 SCC 299 wherein, it is observed as under:-
“5.The submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellant is
that the High Court could not have entertained the subsequent petition
under Section 482 for review or, as the case may be, for modification
of its earlier order having regard to the specific bar contained
in Section 362 CrPC. Section 362 provides as follows:
“362 . Court not to alter judgment .–Save as otherwise provided
by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no
court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of
a case,shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical
or arithmetical error.”
6. The State of Madhya Pradesh represented by the learned
Standing Counsel has filed a counter-affidavit supporting the
contention of the appellant. The learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the second respondent has urged that in the order dated
20-7-2018, the High Court had recorded the submission that no
offence under Section 364 was made out.
7. The High Court while dismissing the petition under Section
482 observed that it would be open to the second respondent to
pursue his remedies after framing of the charge. In view of the
specific bar which is contained in Section 362 , we are of the view
that the impugned order of the High Court is unsustainable. Such
an application for review or modification could not have been
entertained.”
8. We accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned
judgment and order of the High Court dated 20.08.2018 passed in
Surendra Singh vs. State of M.P. Pending application (s), if any,
shall stand disposed of.”
10. If the prayer made by the petitioners in the instant M.Cr.C Petition
is considered in the light of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Atul Shukla (supra) , this Court is of the considered
opinion, that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon by the
petitioners in the case of Anil Khadkiwala (supra) may have no applicability
as the in the case in hand, the prayer itself is for modification / clarification
of the finally disposed of signed order/judgment therefore in the light of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 30-Jun-25
5:20:20 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13120
7 MCRC-28017-2025
preposition laid down in the case of Atul Shukla (supra), the instant M.Cr.C.
petition filed by the petitioners being not maintainable is accordingly
dismissed, however in view of the submission made by the learned Senior
Counsel for the Respondent No.1, the petitioners are granted 10 days further
time to comply with the order dated 12.06.2025 passed in M.Cr.C.
No.41350/2023.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
Van
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 30-Jun-25
5:20:20 PM