Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashok Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 June, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16303
1 WA-1289-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 30 th OF JUNE, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 1289 of 2025
ASHOK JAIN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shantanu Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned Government Advocate for respondent No.1 /
State.
Shri Ravi Nandan Singh (through V.C.), learned Senior Counsel assisted by
Shri Raghav Raj Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.2 / writ petitioner.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
The appellant has filed the present writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the
Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam,
2005 challenging the order dated 03.03.2025 passed by the Writ Court,
whereby W.P. No.5801 of 2025 has been disposed of by directing the Station
House Officer, Police Station – Kanadia to consider the representations dated
27.12.2024 and 04.02.2025 of the petitioner and record his statement on the same
and take appropriate action as may be deemed fit in accordance with law.
02. After the aforesaid order, the SHO, Kanadia, issued a summon to the
appellant and other family members to appear in the police station for the purpose
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 03-07-2025
14:51:25
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16303
2 WA-1289-2025
of investigation in compliance of the order passed by the Writ Court. Therefore,
the appellant rushed to this Court by way of this writ appeal.
03. In this appeal, the appellant has disclosed the date of registration of
FIR No.0198/2021 at the instance of respondent No.2 / writ petitioner against him.
The appellant has also disclosed all the events which have been taken place after
registration of the above FIR which are as under:-
(i) Arrest of the Appellant on 27.05.2021 alleging forgery of
signature of Respondent No.2 on a Cancellation of MoU dated
26.09.2011;
(ii) bail granted by this Hon’ble Court vide an Order dated
22.10.2021 on merits;
(iii) filing of Charge Sheet dated 22.07.2021 alleging offence u/s 406,
465, 420, 468, 471, 201 IPC against the Appellant;
(iv) cognizance having being taken by court vide order dated
22.07.2021;
(v) filing of Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 10.09.2021 alleging
offence u/s 406, 465, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 IPC against the
Appellant;
(vi) allegation of forgery found to be false in FSL Report dated
31.07.2021;
(vii) framing of Charges only under Section 420 IPC, and discharge
of Appellant from alleged offences u/s 406, 467, 468, 471, 201, thus
trial being pending;
(viii) pendency of petitions by all the parties impugning orders
framing Charge / discharge;
(ix) Order dated 19.01.2024 staying the trial in CRR No.5422/2023;
(x) Order dated 23.11.2020 of Commercial Court observing on
fraudulent conduct of Respondent No.2 in deliberate suppression of
material documents;
(xi) Sinister but failed attempt of the Respondent No.2 to get another
FIR registered against the Appellant herein before Crime Branch and
Economic Offices Wing on the same / similar allegations of forgery,
wherein after realizing in the preliminary enquiry about the pendency
of the trial in the same incident, the said agencies (EOW and Crime
Branch) declined to register the FIR in October 2022 and November
2024 respectively; and
(xii) the ongoing feud between the Appellant & Respondent No.2,
erstwhile director of the company Pushp Ratna Reality Pvt. Ltd., and
consequent pendency of, inter alia, the following petitions before this
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 03-07-2025
14:51:25
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16303
3 WA-1289-2025
Hon’ble Court:-”
04. The appellant has also disclosed the details of 17 cases registered and
pending between the appellant and the writ petitioner in respect of the same cause
of action.
Sr
Case details
No.
M.P. No.6917 of 2019 Pushp Ratna Reality Pvt. Ltd. v/s Rajeev
1.
Agnihotri & Others
2. A.C. No.09 of 2020 Rajiv Agnihotri v/s Ashok Jain
3. A.A. No.54 of 2020 Rajiv Agnihotri v/s Ashok Jain
M.Cr.C. No.24467 of 2020 Ashok Jain v/s The State of Madhya
4.
Pradesh
M.Cr.C. No.48459 of 2021 Ashok Jain v/s The State of Madhya
5.
Pradesh
W.P. No.16798 of 2022 Laxmi Balai v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh
6.
& Ors.
W.P. No.12632 of 2023 Ashok Jain v/s State of Madhya Pradesh &
7.
Ors.
M.Cr.C. No.11547 of 2024 Ashok Jain v/s The State of Madhya
8.
Pradesh & Anr.
M.Cr.C. No.29872 of 2022 Anil Dashore v/s The State of Madhya
9.
Pradesh & Ors.
CR.R. No.5422 of 2022 Rajiv Agnihotri v/s The State of Madhya
10.
Pradesh & Anr.
11. CR.R. No.444 of 2024 Ashok Jain v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh
12. Cr.R. No.925 of 2024 The State of Madhya Pradesh v/s Ashok Jain
13. A.C. No.02 of 2024 Rajeev Agnihotri v/s Ashok Jain & Anr.
M.Cr.C. No.52042 of 2024 Rajeev Agnihotri v/s The State of Madhya
14.
Pradesh & Another
M.Cr.C. No.1427 of 2025 Rajeev Agnihotri v/s The State of Madhya
15.
Pradesh & Anr.
M.P. No.7068 of 2024 Brajesh Kumar Tripathi & Ors. v/s Pushparatna
16.
Reality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
M.Cr.C. No.8423 of 2025 Manoj Solanki & Ors. v/s The State of
17.
Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
05. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the writ
petitioner, by suppressing all aforesaid facts, has obtained the ex parte order from
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 03-07-2025
14:51:25
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16303
4 WA-1289-2025
the Writ Court in order to harass the appellant and other family members.
06. While issuing notice to the respondents, this Court granted the interim
protection to the appellant. The writ petitioner appeared before this Court through
Shri Vijay Kumar Asudani, Advocate.
07. On 02.05.2025, learned counsel for the appellant produced the copy of
the order dated 17.07.2023, whereby an application filed by the writ petitioner
under Section 178(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was dismissed by a
detailed and reasoned order by the Xth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore and
submitted that the writ petitioner suppressed this order before the Writ Court. Shri
Asudani, learned counsel submitted that this order was not brought to his
knowledge by the writ petitioner at the time of drafting as well as at the time of
argument in the writ petition. This Court called upon the Station House Officer,
Police Station – Kanadia to file an affidavit.
08. Thereafter, the writ appeal was taken up on 23.06.2025. Since the
order dated 02.05.2025 was not complied with by respondent No.2 / writ
petitioner, the cost of Rs.20,000/- was imposed by granting three days’ time to file
a reply to the appeal as well as a reply to the contempt notice.
09. Respondent No.2 / writ petitioner has withdrawn the Vakalatnama
from Shri Asudani and filed an affidavit by submitting that non-filing of the order
was not wilful or deliberate but due to the inadvertent lapse on the part of the
former legal counsel. The writ petitioner has submitted an unconditional apology.
10. Shri Ravi Nandan Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
respondent No. 2 / writ petitioner submits that the unconditional apology of the
writ petitioner be accepted and time be given to file a reply to the writ appeal, and
for that a separate application has been filed.
11. Shri Shantanu Sharma, learned counsel opposes the above submissions
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 03-07-2025
14:51:25
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16303
5 WA-1289-2025
and submits that the petitioner should be punished for misusing the processes of
law. It is further submitted that the order passed by the Writ Court be also set
aside, as there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code for further
investigation by the police without the permission from the learned trial Court.
12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
13. Sufficient time has been given to the writ petitioner to file the reply,
but he is avoiding to file a reply to the writ appeal. He is a chronic litigant,
therefore, no further time is liable to be granted. Hence, the application is
rejected.
14. So far as the validity of the order dated 03.03.2025 passed by the
learned Writ Court is concerned, there is no such provision in the Cr.P.C. or
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 under which the police can decide
representation, therefore, the direction given to the police to consider the
representation is unsustainable and contrary to the law. The Writ Court has
wrongly issued direction to the police to examine the representation to be
submitted by the petitioner because the trial Court has taken cognizance after
filing the charge-sheet and framing of charges. The SHO, Kanadia has used the
said order as a tool to harass the appellant and his family members. He
immediately came into action and issued notices to all family members of the
appellant i.e. Nilesh Jain, Ajay Jain, Smt. Garima Jain etc. who are not even the
accused in FIR No.0198/2021 and before the trial Court. In respect of this alleged
MoU dated 26.09.2011, the writ petitioner filed an application before the trial
Court for addition of charges under Sections 467, 468, 471, 406 and 201 of the
Indian Penal Code, and the said application had been dismissed by a detailed order
dated 23.08.2023. Thereafter, Criminal Revision No.5422 of 2023 was filed by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 03-07-2025
14:51:25
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16303
6 WA-1289-2025
the writ petitioner before the High Court, and the same has also been dismissed.
15. In paragraph 5.8 of the writ petition, in very brief terms, the writ
petitioner gave a description that the charges of preparation of forged document
has been dropped by the learned Sessions Judge, and the revision preferred in this
regard is pending. The writ petitioner has failed to explain, under which provision
representation has been filed before the police for conducting a further
investigation. Therefore, it appears that the writ petitioner has filed the petition by
suppressing all the facts only to get direction to the police so that he can victimize
the appellant and his family members. The malafide intention for filling the
petition is apparent.
16. It is a settled law that the police cannot do the further investigation
after filing of the charge-sheet without the leave of the trial Court, as held by the
Apex Court in catena of judgements [A.V. Papayya Sastry & Others v/s
Government of A.P. & Others reported in (2007) 4 SCC 221, Rekha Sharad Ushir
v/s Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahakari Patsanta Limited reported in 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 641, Vinubhai Haribhai Malviya & Others v/s State of Gujarat &
Others reported in (2019) 17 SCC 1, Parry Kansagra, In Re (Sup Motu Contempt
Petition (C) No.3 of 2021) reported in (2023) 16 SCC 631].
17. As held above, the writ petitioner filed a writ petition by suppressing
all the facts and obtained the favourable ex parte order with the malafide intention
to harass the appellant and other family members. The writ petitioner who is
present in the Court submits that he is not aware of the provision of law. The said
excuse cannot be accepted as evident from the series of litigation pending between
the parties, therefore, he cannot plead ignorance of law. The writ petitioner
obtained the favourable order against the appellant and other family members
without impleading them as the respondents in the writ petition, therefore, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 03-07-2025
14:51:25
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16303
7 WA-1289-2025
impugned order is not only contrary to law but also against the principle of natural
justice.
18. The unconditional apology submitted by the writ petitioner cannot be
said to be an unconditional one, but it was submitted only to save himself from
the contempt proceedings and the cost. Therefore, the same is rejected; instead of
sending him to jail, a fine is liable to be imposed, as he is a first offender under
the Contempt of Court Act. The impugned order dated 03.03.2025 passed by the
Writ Court in W.P. No.5801 of 2025 is hereby set aside. The SHO, Police Station
– Kanadia is also warned that in future he will strictly follow the provisions of the
BNSS while discharging his duties.
19. Writ Appeal stands allowed with a cost and fine of Rs.50,000/-
payable by respondent No.2 / writ petitioner. Out of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.10,000/- shall
be paid to the appellant, and the remaining Rs.40,000/- shall be paid to the High
Court Legal Aid Services Authority, Indore.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ravi
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 03-07-2025
14:51:25