Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rohit Chaturvedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36072
1 CRRNo.126/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 4th OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 126 of 2022
ROHIT CHATURVEDI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Narendra Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the applicants.
Shri Chandrakant Mishra -Government Advocate for the respondent
No.1/State.
Shri Vikash Kumar Santu - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
Reserved on : 18.06.2025
Pronounced on : 04.08.2025
ORDER
This Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401
of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred being aggrieved
with the order dated 08.12.2021 passed by IVth Additional Sessions
Judge, Jabalpur (M.P.) in Session Trial No.627/2021 whereby charges
have been framed against the applicant No.1/Rohit Chaturvedi for the
offence punishable under Sections 294, 379, 384, 477 of the Indian
Penal Code and against the applicant No.2/Sheetal Singh Chouhan for
the offence punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. In nutshell, the complaint before the trial Court was that on
01.04.2011, the complainant Smt. Saroj Vishwakarma was traveling in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINAY KUMAR
BURMAN
Signing time: 04-08-2025
17:53:59
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36072
2 CRRNo.126/2025
Amarkantak Express from Bilaspur to Madan Mahal Railway Station,
Jabalpur in ladies Coach and when she reached at Jabalpur Railway
Station, Head Constable Sheetal Singh Chouhan and other staff stopped
the complainant and said to her that she was travelling in a Coach
reserved for disabled persons and the said Head Constable also asked
the complainant to pay the penalty for that and they took the
complainant to R.P.F. Post where the applicant No.1/Rohit Chaturvedi
took Rs.5,000/- from the bag of the complainant, torn the railway ticket
of the complainant and also abused the complainant. The applicant was
also abusing the advocates of Jabalpur. When she was coming out from
the Post, the applicant No.2/Sheetal Singh Chouhan pushed the
complainant and abused her. On that basis, a case was registered in
G.R.P. Police Station, Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Section
384, 341, 506 and 294 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants as
a Crime No.46/2011.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that after filing
of the charge-sheet, learned Judicial Magistrate framed charges under
Sections 294, 379, 384 of the IPC against the applicant No.1/Rohit
Chaturvedi and under Section 341 against the applicant No.2/Sheetal
Singh Chouhan without there being a proper evidence on record. On
commitment under Section 323 of Cr.P.C., the trial Court framed the
charges.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that the
applicants are public servant and the alleged offence has been
committed during working hours of the applicants and, therefore,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINAY KUMAR
BURMAN
Signing time: 04-08-2025
17:53:59
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36072
3 CRRNo.126/2025
compliance of Section 195(197) of Cr.P.C. was mandatory and no such
permission was taken.
5. The case is false only because of the fact that offences have been
registered against the Advocates, Saurabh Sharma and Vineet Dubey by
Constable Ram Bahadur Singh as Crime No.55/2011 and 1730/2011 for
driving the Activa vehicle on Madan Mahal Railway Station Platform
and the advocates threatened the constable to be prepared for dire
consequences.
6. The complainant Saroj Vishwakarma is working as a Teacher in
the School namely Indira High School, Madhotal, Jabalpur and the
owner of the said school is Shri Saurabh Sharma and the complainant-
Saroj Vishwakarma is the employee of Advocate Shri Saurabh Sharma
and she is also residing in the house of Shri Saurabh Sharma. The
complainant has stated in the FIR that from 30.03.2011 till 01.04.2011,
she was at Bilaspur and on 01.04.2011, she returned back to Jabalpur
but as per the attendance register of the school, in which she was
employed, received through R.T.I. shows that on 30.03.2011 and
31.03.2011, she marked her presence in the school and she has signed in
the school register. School Register is Annexure-A/2.
7. The trial Court has framed charges under Section 477 of the
Indian Penal Code but no case is made out as the general ticket was not
a valuable security. The Investigating Agency itself has stated in the
charge sheet that independent witnesses are not available and charge
sheet was filed on the direction of the higher authorities and directed for
prosecution. Hence, it is submitted that the applicants be discharged
from the said offences.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINAY KUMAR
BURMAN
Signing time: 04-08-2025
17:53:59
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36072
4 CRRNo.126/2025
8. Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that the
trial Court had not considered the principle laid down in the case of
Montek Singh vs. State of West Bengal and another, 2002 SCC
Online Cal 603. As per the protection available to the applicants under
Section 20 Sub-Section 3 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 and
under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. From the FIR
itself it is clear that the applicants were on duty at that time when the act
was done during discharging of their official duties. The same principle
has laid down in the case H.V. Nagaraju and Others vs. State of
Karnataka, 2022 SCC Online Kar 974 particularly in Para-6, in which
it has been clearly stated that the protection of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is
available to public servant to prosecute for any offence committed
during the duty hours.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant relying on the judgment of
Madhu Limaye vs. The State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551 and
Sanjay Kumar Rai Vs. State of U.P. and Anr., (2022) 15 SCC 720
has submitted that the power vested under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. are
not less than the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. while framing the
charges, the Court has not to act as mere post office. The Court has to
consider broad probabilities, total effect of the evidence and the
documents produced and the basic infirmities appearing in the case.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied on the judgment
in the case of Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain vs. Pandey Ajay
Bhushan and others, (1998) I SCC 205, Matajog Dobey vs. H.C.
Bhari, 1955 Online SC 44, Satyavir Singh Rathi, ACP v. State,
(2011) 6 SCC 1, State of H.P. v. M.P. Gupta, (2004) 2 SCC 349, P.K.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINAY KUMAR
BURMAN
Signing time: 04-08-2025
17:53:59
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36072
5 CRRNo.126/2025
Pradhan v. State of Sikkim, (2001) 6 SCC 704, B. Saha v. M.S.
Kochar, (1979) 4 SCC 177, State of Orissa v. Ganesh Chandra Jew,
(2004) 8 SCC 40, Devinder Singh and Others v. State of Punja,
(2016) 12 SCC 87, B.K. Parchure v. State and Another, 2022 SCC
Online Del 2492 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sheetla Sahai and
Others, (2009) 8 SCC 617 and submitted that applicant be discharged
basically on the ground that the charges were framed by the trial Court
are not made out. Secondly, it is clear from the fact of the case that
police report is total false and fabricated to take revenge by the
Advocate Shri Saurabh Sharma due to previous dispute. Thirdly,
protections of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. and Section 20(3) of R.P.F. Act is
available but the trial Court has not considered this aspect.
11. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has opposed the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants and
submitted that this revision petition deserves to be dismissed.
12. I have gone through the order sheets produced by the revisionists.
As per that, the case was committed by the Special Railway Magistrate,
Jabalpur to the Sessions Judge, Jabalpur for the offence punishable
under Sections 294, 379, 384, 341 and 477 of the Indian Penal Code and
on 17.11.2021, the case was transferred to the trial Court and the trial
Court initiated the proceeding on 18.11.2021. During this period, no
application was filed for discharge. On 08.12.2021, the arguments were
raised regarding dispute between Head Constable Ram Bahadur Singh
and Saurabh Sharma and Vineet Dubey at Madan Mahal Railway
Station. It was also argued that the complainant Saroj Vishwakarma was
the employee of the school run by Shri Saurabh Sharma and on the date
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINAY KUMAR
BURMAN
Signing time: 04-08-2025
17:53:59
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36072
6 CRRNo.126/2025
of 30.03.2011 and 31.03.2011 she was present in the school and not
travelling from Bilaspur to Jabalpur. After that, the trial Court has
framed the charges and the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
13. When the cognizance was taken, the applicants have raised the
point of protection of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. or of Sub-Section 3 of
Section 20 of the R.P.F. Act has not been argued and whether the
application was dismissed or allowed. The learned Judicial Magistrate
after framing of charges conducted a trial and observing that offence
punishable under Section 477 of IPC is made out and on that basis, the
case was committed to the Sessions Court and the trial Court has framed
the charges.
14. Thus, without challenging cognizance before the committal Court
or before the trial Court at the first instance when this point has not been
raised in the revision, at the argument stage, this point is not
maintainable.
15. Whereas, point of conspiracy between the complainant and Shri
Saurabh Sharma and other counsel is concerned, it is a pure case of
evidence that can be proved after recording of evidence. Furthermore, in
the same way, whether the complainant was present in Jabalpur and was
in her school and not travelled from Bilaspur to Jabalpur via
Amarkantak Express, at this stage, it cannot be considered as the
veracity of the documents produced by the applicants have to be tested
by calling the witnesses who has issued the certificate and who was
maintaining the register. Thus without examining of the witnesses at this
stage, it could not be said that the school register is true or false.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINAY KUMAR
BURMAN
Signing time: 04-08-2025
17:53:59
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36072
7 CRRNo.126/2025
16. Furthermore, learned counsel for the applicants has failed to
demonstrate that the prosecution agency itself has filed that documents
as the part of the charge sheet and that could have been considered by
the trial Court, thus, at the stage of framing of charges, the Court is not
bound and shall not take into consideration, the evidence of the defence
as held in the case of State Of Orissa vs Debendra Nath Padhi, AIR,
2003 SC 1512.
17. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that after travel the
ticket is not a valuable security but in all cases, it could not be said that
after journey, the ticket lost its value and is not valuable security as it
may be required to be produced as evidence of journey and to claim the
travel allowance and to show that a particular person has travelled from
one distance to other distance. It may be used as a document and it is not
a value less document and as per State amendment of Madhya Pradesh
dated 14.02.2008, offence punishable under Section 477 of IPC was
made tribal by the Court of Sessions, hence looking these factors, the
order of framing of charges cannot be said to be without the evidence on
record.
18. Hence, the applicants are not entitled to the benefit of principles
laid down in the judgments of Montek Singh (supra), H.V. Nagaraj
(supra), Sanjay Kumar Rai (supra), Pukhraj (supra), Suresh Kumar
Bhikamchand (supra), Madhu Limaye (supra), Matajog Dobey
(supra), Satyavir Singh Rathi (supra), M.P. Gupta (supra), P.K.
Pradhan (supra), B. Saha and other(supra), Ganesh Chandra Jew
(supra) and Devinder Singh (supra), in which it has been clearly held
that the government servant/ person of the railway protection force is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINAY KUMAR
BURMAN
Signing time: 04-08-2025
17:53:59
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36072
8 CRRNo.126/2025
entitled the protection of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. and Section 20(3) of the
Railway Protection Act while any act is done during his official duties
and without sanction of the competent authority, no prosecution could
be launched and the principle that if the act of complainant during his
official duties is excess but only on the basis that government servant
has trace passed jurisdiction while performing his duty as a government
servant.
19. In the same way, that legal point that has not been raised before
the Sessions Court while charges were being framed i.e. the first time,
they could not agitate the cognizance and at this stage without any
evidence, the Court could not express whether the allegations are true or
false and whether statements of complainant are trustworthy or not and
to prove the fact, is the duty of the prosecution. Only on the basis that
evidence is weak or it is probable that the applicants have not committed
any offence, without trial, the applicants could not be discharged.
20. Hence, this Court in exercise the powers of revision where the
matter has to be considered on merit, it could not be concluded that no
offence is made out. Hence, revision sans merit and is dismissed.
21. Looking to the fact that the case is pending since 2011, the trial
Court is requested to conclude the trial within 9 months from receipt of
order of this Court.
22. Let the record of the Court below be returned back.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
VB*
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINAY KUMAR
BURMAN
Signing time: 04-08-2025
17:53:59