Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narsingh Patidar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 July, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15935
1 CRR-360-2024 & 361-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 360 of 2024
NARSINGH PATIDAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
.............................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Mr. Aditya Verma - Advocate for applicant.
Mr. Prasanna Prasad - Advocate for respondent.
.............................................................................................................................
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 361 of 2024
NARSINGH PATIDAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
.............................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Mr. Aditya Verma - Advocate for applicant.
Mr. Prasanna Prasad - Advocate for respondent.
.............................................................................................................................
Reserved on : 27/06/2025
Pronounced on : 01/07/2025
ORDER
Per: Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi
These petitions under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. (equivalent to Section
528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) have been filed being
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 01-07-2025
18:53:13
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15935
2 CRR-360-2024 & 361-2024
aggrieved by the order dated 21.11.2023 (Annexure P/1) whereby the learned
Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Mandsaur in Special Case No.
6/2022 arising out of Crime No.413/2016 and in Special Case No. 7/2022
arising out of Crime No.416/2015, both registered at Police Station – Special
Police Establishment and has framed charges against the applicant under
Section 13(1)(D) and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
(hereinafter for short referred ‘the PC Act‘) and Section 420 & 120B of Indian
Penal Code (for short ‘IPC‘).
02. Brief facts as having emerged during the trial are that an Inspector
Basant Shrivastava, Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt Office, Ujjain on
information suo moto submitted a report to Superintendent of Police, Lokayukt
with regard to the fact that Smt. Bhanwarkunwar – Ex-Sarpanch of Village
Panchayat – Rajakhedi and Secretary Narsingh Patidar (present applicant)
during their tenure as such from 2007-2009 having conspired with other co-
accused persons and misusing their official capacity without getting approved
layout, allotted 79 residential plots to the ineligible persons situated by the side
of Ajijkhedi Highway in village Rajakhedi and thereby caused huge revenue
loss to the Government. On the basis of aforesaid report by Inspector Basant
Shrivastava, the then Superintendent of Police submitted a letter dated
22.07.2014 to headquarter of Special Police Establishment Lokayukt, Bhopal
for registering a preliminary enquiry. Special Police Establishment Lokayukt
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 01-07-2025
18:53:13
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15935
3 CRR-360-2024 & 361-2024
vide letter dated 26.07.2014 registered a preliminary enquiry on No. 73/2014
and send it back to Special Police Establishment Office, Ujjain for conducting
the enquiry. S.P. Lokayukt, Ujjain assigned enquiry to inspector Basant
Shrivastava for submitting a report, who submitted a letter dated 30.07.2014 to
SDM, Mandsaur for obtaining necessary information. SDM, Mandsaur vide
letter dated 11.09.2014 submitted requisite information to Special Police
Establishment, Ujjain. Further enquiry was handed over to Inspector Rohit
Yadav posted at Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt Office, Ujjain.
Inspector Rohit Yadav during enquiry collected information from Tehsildar,
Mandsaur, Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Rajakhedi, Deputy Director, Town &
Country Planning, Neemuch, Sub-Registrar, Mandsaur, Sarpanch, Gram
Panchayat, Rajakhedi about the Pattas which were allotted on 20.02.2009 to
beneficiary Jagdish S/o Karulal Patidar, R/o Village Rajakhedi, Tehsil & Dist.
Mandsaur. Patta No. 35 dated 28.07.2007 for Patwari Halka No. 14, Survey No.
124, area 30 X 30 or 900 for Rs.13,378/- was allotted by the then Sarpanch Smt.
Bhanwarkunwar and applicant Narsingh Patidar by misusing their official
position along with other beneficiaries. After completion of enquiry, FIRs were
registered and investigation ensued. On completion of usually investigation,
separate charge-sheets were filed against the applicant and other co-accused
persons. When the charge-sheets were filed before the Court of competent local
jurisdiction notified for proceeding for cases investigated by Special Police
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 01-07-2025
18:53:13
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15935
4 CRR-360-2024 & 361-2024
Establishment Lokayukt at Mandsaur in Special Case Nos. 6/2022 & 7/2022
under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) & 13(2) of PC Act as amended in 2018 originated
and trial proceeded and charges were framed against the applicant and other co-
accused persons as mentioned hereinabove.
03. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned trial
Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective and committed
grave error of facts and law in passing the impugned orders to frame charges
under Section 13(1)(D) and Section 13(2) of the PC Act and Section 420 &
120B of IPC against the applicant, therefore, prays for setting aside the
impugned orders by allowing the petitions.
04. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the
prayer and submitted that ample evidence is on record to prove the complicity
of the applicant for the offences alleged against him. Prosecution has collected
ample evidence which raises grave suspicion against the applicant for
commission of the offences. Therefore, this is not a case where prayer for
discharge can be allowed. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petitions.
05. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
06. Before dwelling into merits of the case, it is apposite to have a
glance over the provisions of 227 and 228 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred for short „the Cr.P.C.) which runs as under:-
“Section 227. Discharge. If, upon consideration of the record
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 01-07-2025
18:53:13
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:159355 CRR-360-2024 & 361-2024
of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after
hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in
this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge
the accused and record his reasons for so doing.”
“Section 228. Framing of charge. (1) If, after such
consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of
opinion that there is ground for presuming that the
accused has committed an offence which –
(a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may,
frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the
case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, [or any other
Judicial Magistrate of the first class and direct the accused to
appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or, as the case
may be, the Judicial Magistrate of the first class, on such date
as he deems fit, and thereupon such Magistrate] [Substituted
by Act 25 of 2005, Section 22 for “and thereupon the Chief
Judicial Magistrate” (w.e.f. 23-6-2006).] shall try the offence
in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant-cases
instituted on a police report;
(b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in
writing a charge against the accused. (2) Where the Judge
frames any charge under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the
charge shall be read and explained to accused, and the accused
shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged
or claims to be tried.”
07. The Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
16.02.2024 in Cr.R.No.4809 of 2023 (Baga @ Bhagirath vs. State of
M.P.) in para-7 to 10 has held as under:-
“7. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghulam
Hassan Beigh V Mohammad Maqbool Magrey & Ors.,
[2022 LiveLaw (SC) 631] has reiterated as under:-
“21. This Court in the case of Union of India v. Prafulla
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 01-07-2025
18:53:13
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:159356 CRR-360-2024 & 361-2024
Kumar Samal and another, (1979) 3 SCC 4, considered
the scope of enquiry a judge is required to make while
considering the question of framing of charges. After an
exhaustive survey of the case law on the point, this Court,
in paragraph 10 of the judgment, laid down the following
principles:-
“(1) That the Judge while considering the question of
framing the charges under section 227 of the Code has the
undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the
limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima
facie case against the accused has been made out.
(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose
grave suspicion against the accused which has not been
properly explained the Court will be, fully justified in
framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would
naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is
difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By
and large however if two views are equally possible and
the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before
him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave
suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his
right to discharge the accused.
(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under section 227 of
the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a
senior and experienced Judge cannot act merely as a Post
office or a mouth-piece of the prosecution, but has to
consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total
effect of the evidence and the documents produced before
the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and
so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should
make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the
matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a
trial.”
8. In the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra V State
(Government of NCT of Delhi), [(2009) 16 SCC 605] in
paragraphs 25 and 27 has held as under:-
“25. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the
Court is required to evaluate the material and documents
on record with a view to finding out if the facts emergingSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 01-07-2025
18:53:13
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:159357 CRR-360-2024 & 361-2024
therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence
of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or
offences. For this limited purpose, the Court may sift the
evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage
to accept as gospel truth all that the prosecution states. At
this stage, the Court has to consider the material only with
a view to find out if there is ground for “presuming” that
the accused has committed an offence and not for the
purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to
lead to a conviction.
27. In view of the settled legal position, noted above, we
are convinced that the trial court was correct in law in
coming to the conclusion that a case for framing charge
against the appellant had been made out. Similarly, the
scope of revisional powers of the High Court under
Section 401 of the Code being limited, the High Court
was justified in dismissing the revision petition, preferred
by the appellant.”
08. The Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.02.2024 in
Cr.R.No.5895 of 2019 (Dilip Damor & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.) has held as
under:-
“12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. vs.
Deepak [(2019) 13 SCC 62], reversing the order of
discharging from charges under Section 306 of IPC, has
enunciated the principles which the High Courts must keep in
mind while exercising their jurisdiction under the provision.
In this case, endorsing another case of Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander [(2012) 9 SCC
460 has quoted as under:-
“27. .. At best and upon objective analysis of various
judgments of this Court, we are able to cull out some
of the principles to be considered for proper exercise
of jurisdiction, particularly, with regard to quashing of
charge either in exercise of jurisdiction under Section
397 or Section 482 of the Code or together, as the case
may be:
27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 01-07-2025
18:53:13
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:159358 CRR-360-2024 & 361-2024
uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of
the case and the documents submitted therewith prima
facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are
so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no
prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and
where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are
not satisfied then the Court may interfere.
27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No
meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for
considering whether the case would end in conviction
or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of
charge.
27.4. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely
essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and
for correcting some grave error that might be
committed by the subordinate courts even in such
cases, the High Court should be loath to interfere, at
the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise of
its inherent powers.
27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts
have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts,
evidence and materials on record to determine whether
there is sufficient material on the basis of which the
case would end in a conviction; the court is concerned
primarily with the allegations taken as a whole
whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it
an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice.
27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule
of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even
broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to
permit continuation of prosecution rather than its
quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not
expected to marshal the records with a view to decide
admissibility and reliability of the documents or
records but is an opinion formed prima facie.”
15. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that
since no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners,
the impugned orders are not sustainable. On this aspect, the
law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Orissa vs. Debendranath Padhi [2004 Law Suit (SC) 1408] is
worth to refer here as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 01-07-2025
18:53:13
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15935
9 CRR-360-2024 & 361-2024
“Further, at the stage of framing of charge roving and
fishing inquiry is impermissible. If the contention of the
accused is accepted, there would be a mini trial at the
stage of framing of charge. That would defeat the object
of the Code. It is well-settled that at the stage of framing
of charge the defence of the accused cannot be put forth.”
16. This Court is conscious of the various decisions laid down
by Hon’ble Apex Court on the point. In the case of Union of
India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another [AIR 1979 SC
366], the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:
“The scope of section 227 of the Code was considered
by a recent decision of this Court in the case of State
of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39 where
Untwalia, J. speaking for the Court observed as
follows Para 4:-
“….Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter
remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the
place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial.
But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion
which leads the Court to think that there is ground for
presuming that the accused has committed an offence
then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is
to be drawn at the initial stage is not in the sense of the
law governing the trial of criminal cases in France
where the accused is presumed to be guilty unless the
contrary is proved. But it is only for the purpose of
deciding prima facie whether the Court should
proceed with the trial or not. If the evidence which the
Prosecutor pro poses to adduce to prove the guilt of
the accused even if fully accepted before it is
challenged in cross-examination or rebut ted by the
defence evidence; if any, cannot show that the accused
committed the offence then there will be no sufficient
ground for proceeding with the trial or not…..”.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 01-07-2025
18:53:13
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15935
10 CRR-360-2024 & 361-2024
09. In the case of Ravi Kumar Pandey vs. State of M.P. [2018
Law Suit (MP) 2190] that at the time of framing of charge it is not to
be seen whether the accused can be guilty on the basis of evidence or
not. The relevant observation is reproduced as under:-
“The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be
applied finally before finding, the accused guilty or otherwise,
is not exactly to be applied at the stage of framing of charge
by the trial Court. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion
founded upon material before the trial Court, which leads him
to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the
factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged Cri. Rev.
No.1971/2013 may justify the framing of charge against the
accused in respect of the commission of that offence is lawful.
9. At this stage it is not required to go into the merits of the
prosecution evidence as required to discuss at the stage of
passing of judgment by the trial Court. There is no need to sift
and weigh or appreciate the prosecution evidence as well as
defence available to the applicants and come to the conclusion
that no prima-facie case is made out nor could be exercised to
stifle a legitimate prosecution. Accordingly, I do not find any
illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated
26.08.2013 warranting interference by way of this revision
petition against framing of charge. Hence, the revision is
dismissed summarily.”
10. In the case of State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh [AIR 1977 SC
2018], the Apex Court has held as under:-
“Para-4 Reading Ss. 227 and 228 together in juxtaposition, as
they have got to be, it would be clear that at the beginning and
the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the
evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to
be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to
the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory forSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 01-07-2025
18:53:13
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15935
11 CRR-360-2024 & 361-2024
the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and
weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved,
would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or
not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally
applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or
otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the
stage of deciding the matter under S. 227 or S. 228 of the
Code. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is
sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the
trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against
the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion,
cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of
the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion
which leads the Court to think that there is ground for
presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is
not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused. If the evidence which the
prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the
accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-
examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any,
cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then
there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the
trial.If the scales of pan as to the guilt or innocence of the
accused are something like even at the conclusion of the trial,
then, on the theory of benefit of doubt the case is to end in his
acquittal. But if, on the other hand, it is so at the initial stage
of making an order under S. 227 or S. 228, then in such a
situation ordinarily and generally the order which will have to
be made will be one under S. 228 and not under S. 227.”
11. In the case of Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation [
(2010) 9 SCC 368], the Apex Court has held as under:-
“It is clear that the Judge concerned has to consider all the
records of the case, the documents placed, hear the submission
of the accused and the prosecution and if there is “not
sufficient ground” (emphasis supplied) for proceeding against
the accused, he shall discharge the accused by recording
reasons. If after such consideration and hearing, as mentioned
in Section 227, if the Judge is of the opinion that “there isSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 01-07-2025
18:53:13
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15935
12 CRR-360-2024 & 361-2024
ground for presuming” (emphasis supplied) that the accused
has committed an offence, he is free to direct the accused to
appear and try the offence in accordance with the procedure
after framing charge in writing against the accused.”
12. In view of the aforesaid principles, we have gone through the
evidence available on record and on careful perusal of the documents filed with
the revision petition, particularly, the charge-sheet and documents annexed
therewith prima facie established that there is well founded case for the offence
punishable under section under Sections 13(1)(D) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act and
Sections 420 & 120B of IPC, are made out against the applicant. At the stage of
framing the charges, the Court cannot apply its judicial mind for scrutinizing the
fact as to whether that the evidence available on record is sufficient for
conviction or not.
13. In the instant case from perusal of the record, it is apparent that
ample evidence has been collected to support the charges as levelled against
the applicant for the offences under Sections 13(1)(D) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act and
Sections 420 & 120B of IPC for which the charges have been framed against the
applicant. It is not in dispute that applicant during relevant period in between
2007-2010 was working as public servant, posted as Secretary of Village
Panchayat – Rajakhedi, who is responsible for maintaining records day-to-day
affairs of the Panchayat and he was the person to apprise the senior officers like
Tehsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer, if any irregularity or illegality was being
perpetuated in the working of Village Panchayat. In an enquiry held by the then
Tehsildar, Mandsaur at the behest of SDM, Mandsaur, it has been found that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 01-07-2025
18:53:13
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15935
13 CRR-360-2024 & 361-2024
Survey No. 122, Rakba 0.110, Survey No. 124, Rakba 0.950, Survey No.125,
Rakba 0.030, Survey No. 243/2, Rakba 0.420, Survey No. 245, Rakba 0.170,
Survey No. 248, Rakba 0.050, Survey No. 250, Rakba 0.160 which belong to
Abadi land and Survey No. 124 is of old Abadi. The then Sarpanch
Bhawarkunwar, one of the co-accused in the cases and the applicant Narsingh
Patidar, the then Secretary of the concerned Village Panchayat conspiring with
beneficiary Patta holders have allotted 79 residential plots out of which 44 plots
have been allotted to the persons who are not residents of village Ajijkhedi and
19 are the persons whose father/husband/father-in-law or they themselves
houses in their own name and seven allottees are using the plots for commercial
purposes. These plots have been allotted without getting sanctioned lay out from
SDO, Mandsaur as Village – Ajijkhedi has been included in Mandsaur
Development Scheme since 17.11.2000. On the basis of evidence collected in
the form of statements of witnesses‟ complainant Nageshwar S/o Amritlal Gayri
and Mukesh Gayri, r/o Ajijkhedi and documents, it has been found established
that applicant and other co-accused persons conspiring with beneficiary Jagdish
S/o Karulal Patidar, r/o. Village – Rajakhedi has allotted the aforesaid plots to
ineligible persons and thereby misusing his official position caused wrongful
gain to himself and wrongful loss to the Government. Grave suspicion about
commission of offence has been established against the applicant by way of the
evidence available on record, it cannot be inferred that learned trial Court has
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 01-07-2025
18:53:13
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15935
14 CRR-360-2024 & 361-2024
committed any error in framing charges for the offences mentioned hereinabove
against the applicant.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion in entirety as well as the
material available on record, the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the
aforesaid cases, this Court does not find any illegality, irregularity or
impropriety in the impugned orders passed by the learned trial Court. Therefore,
no interference is warranted.
15. At this stage, this revision petitions filed by the applicant fails.
Resultantly, the present petitions are hereby dismissed and the impugned orders
of the learned trial Court are affirmed.
16. Pending application(s), if any, also stand closed.
17. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observations on
the merits of the case and this order shall not be come in the way of the learned
trial Court while passing the final judgment.
CC as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Soumya
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 01-07-2025
18:53:13