IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

<>

AT JABALPUR

<>

BEFORE

<>

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH

<>

ON THE 2

<>

nd

<>

OF FEBRUARY, 2026

<>

CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2559 of 2025

<>

GANESH PRASAD GARG AND OTHERS

<>

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

<>

Appearance:

<>

Shri Manoj Kumar Mishra - Advocate for the applicants.

<>

Ms. Seema Jailswal - Panel Lawyer for the State of M.P.

<>

Shri Manoj Kushwaha - Advocate for the respondents.

<>

ORDER

<>

This revision has been filed by the applicants namely applicant

no.1- Ganesh Prasad Garg and applicant no.2- Bablu Mishra being

aggrieved by the impugned order dated 24.5.2025 passed in S.T. No.07

of 2025 (State of M.P. Vs. Rajju and others) by learned Additional

Sessions Judge, of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Lavkush

Nagar, District Chhatarpur, M.P. whereby an application under Section

213 of B.N.S.S. filed by the respondent no.2- Jitendra Mishra –

complainant was allowed the applicants have been arrayed in the array

of accused persons and process has been issued to the applicants to

appear before the trial court.

2. The ground of revision is that the order dated 24.5.2025

(Ann.A-6) is bad in law because learned Trial court was not justified in

1 CRR-2559-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:9365

invoking Section 213 of B.N.N.S., 2023 (the old Section 193 of Cr.P.C.)

as the applicants were not charge sheeted by the prosecution.

3. After conducting investigation and as per material available in

the charge sheet it was found that there is no involvement of the

applicants and they were not present on the alleged place of incident.

Therefore provisions of Section 213 of B.N.N.S., 2023 could not be

invoked against them on the basis of material available.

4. It is further submitted that the trial court did not consider the

fact that Magistrate had already taken cognizance and no application

under Section 210 of B.N.N.S., 2023 was filed by the prosecution or the

complainant before the Magistrate. After the committal proceedings the

trial court has also taken cognizance but at that time also no application

was filed. Thereafter charges were framed and case was fixed for

evidence stage, therefore the cognizance could not taken at this stage

against the present applicants.

5. It is further submitted that due to enmity of Sarpanch Election

the application has been filed. Infact the wife of the applicant no.2 is the

elected Sarpanch of the village and applicant no. 1 is the father of the

applicant no.2- Bablu Mishra and the applicant no. 2 belongs to the

family of the complainant therefore due to enmity his name was

included. The Police did not find any involvement of the applicants in

the alleged incident, hence prayer is made to set aside the order dated

24.5.2025, (Annexure A-6).

2 CRR-2559-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:9365

6. Learned counsel for the State supports the impugned order dated

24.5.2025, (Annexure A-6).

7. Learned counsel for the respondent – complainant also supports

the impugned order dated 24.5.2025, (Annexure A-6).

8. The question before this court is whether in this revision any

interference can be made in the impugned order dated 24.5.2025?

9. Perused the record. It is seen that as per FIR Crime No.318 of

2024 was filed. The incident is said to have been of 14.8.2024.

10. Learned counsel for the applicants relied on the judgment of

Guddi Devi Vs. State of Raj. & anr.

<>

reported in 2012 SCC OnLine

<>

Raj.3539

<>

in which it has been held by Hon’ble High Court at Rajasthan

that it is settled preposition of law that in a Sessions Trial triable case

once the matter is committed to the Court of Sessions then the Sessions

Court has no power to summon an additional accused except at the stage

of Section 319 of Cr.P.C. after evidence has been recorded at the trial

and provision of Section 193 of Cr.P.C. cannot be involved for the same

purpose.

11. Learned counsel for the applicants also relied on the judgment

in the case of Farman and two others Vs. State of U.P. and another

<>

passed in Application U/S 482 No.38681 of 2019, vide order dated

<>

7.11.2019

<>

wherein it has been held as under :-

“It is well settled position of law that cognizance of an

offence can only be taken once and if once the cognizance of the

offence has been taken in the present case by the Sessions Court

3 CRR-2559-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:9365

after committal of the case to the Sessions Court and the Sessions

Court had charged the accused and the trial of the accused has

commenced then again the Sessions Court will not be able to go

back and to take further cognizance of the case again under

Section 193 Cr.P.C.”

In the present matter as the cognizance has already been

taken by the learned Sessions Judge and charges were framed

against the accused after considering the police papers annexed

with the charge-sheet and the trial had started, it would not be

proper for the trial court to take further cognizance of the case and

to summon the three accused by the impugned order. The

summoning of the three accused by the impugned order is not in

consonance with the legal provisions of law. The cognizance

taken by the trial sessions court under Section 193 Cr.P.C. for the

second time is not perfectly valid and permissible by law. The

impugned order is not legally proper and the impugned order

transpires that the trial sessions court has abused the process of

law. The impugned order is liable to be quashed.

The impugned order dated 18.09.2019 passed by

Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.10, Meerut in S.T. No.447

of 2018 and 912 of 2018 (State of U.P. Vs. Ikram and Ors.), under

Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 342, 352, 307, 302 and 308 IPC,

Police Station Parichitgarh, District Meerut, is hereby quashed

with the direction that since the trial has proceeded and is at an

advanced stage as the prosecution has examined the prosecution

witness of the trial and if the trial court considers after evaluating

the evidence before it, which has come during trial then the trial

court may proceed against the persons, who appears to be guilty

of the commission of offence with the aid of Section 319 Cr.P.C.

12. On perusal of the impugned order dated 24.5.2025, (Annexure

A-6) it is seen that the trial court has mentioned that the application filed

by the complainant in detail and reply of the proposed accused persons,

4 CRR-2559-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:9365

it is to be noted that learned A.G.P. in the trial court opposed the

application that till statements of complainant party are recorded till then

no prima facie conclusion can be drawn against involvement of the

proposed accused in the crime and held that application is premature.

13. On perusal of the impugned order dated 24.5.2025, (Annexure

A-6) it is seen that learned trial court has mentioned that name of

proposed accused persons were in the FIR. Learned Sessions Court held

that after committal the Sessions Court has power to take cognizance

and it has mentioned in detail as to when the statements of various

witnesses were recorded by Police and ultimately on the basis of Balveer

<>

Singh and another Vs. State of Rajasthan (Cr.Appeal No.253 of 2016,

<>

vide judgment dated 10.5.2016)

<>

and Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab

<>

(2014) 3 SCC 92

<>

has mentioned that if the court finds that on record

there is evidence to summon the proposed accused persons then court

need not wait for a proceeding under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. He further

mentioned that when the complainant will come then he will give same

evidence against proposed accused which he has given to Police

therefore there is no need to wait.

14. After considering the arguments and perusal of record it is

seen that the reasoning of the trial court is faulty and cannot be justified

for the simple reason that when cognizance of the accused was taken by

the learned trial court after committal and before framing charges if court

5 CRR-2559-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:9365

was of the same view as reflected in order dated 24.5.2025 on facts and

law, then cognizance should have been taken against the two proposed

revisioners earlier but that was not done. It was only done when an

application was filed for the same purpose by the complainant.

15. This legal situation has been explained by Hon’ble Supreme in

the case of Omi @ Omkar Rathore and another Vs. State of Madhya

<>

Pradesh

<>

reported in (2025) 2 SCC 621.

<>

Paragraph no. 19 to 19.4 are

relevant which are reproduced before :-

19.

<>

The principles of law as regards Section 319CrPC may be

summarised as under:

19.1.

<>

On a careful reading of Section 319CrPC as well as the

aforesaid two decisions, it becomes clear that the trial court has undoubted

jurisdiction to add any person not being the accused before it to face the trial

along with other accused persons, if the Court is satisfied at any stage of the

proceedings on the evidence adduced that the persons who have not been

arrayed as accused should face the trial. It is further evident that such person

even though had initially been named in the FIR as an accused, but not

charge-sheeted, can also be added to face the trial.

19.2.

<>

The trial court can take such a step to add such persons as

accused only on the basis of evidence adduced before it and not on the basis

of materials available in the charge-sheet or the case diary, because such

materials contained in the charge-sheet or the case diary do not constitute

evidence.

19.3.

<>

The power of the court under Section 319CrPC is not controlled

or governed by naming or not naming of the person concerned in the FIR. Nor

the same is dependent upon submission of the charge-sheet by the police

against the person concerned. As regards the contention that the phrase “any

person not being the accused” occurred in Section 319 excludes from its

operation an accused who has been released by the police under Section 169

of the Code and has been shown in Column 2 of the charge-sheet, the

contention has merely to be stated to be rejected. The said expression clearly

covers any person who is not being tried already by the Court and the very

6 CRR-2559-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:9365

purpose of enacting such a provision like Section 319(1) clearly shows that

even persons who have been dropped by the police during investigation but

against whom evidence showing their involvement in the offence comes

before the criminal court are included in the said expression.

19.4.

<>

It would not be proper for the trial court to reject the application

for addition of new accused by considering records of the investigating

officer. When the evidence of complainant is found to be worthy of

acceptance then the satisfaction of the investigating officer hardly matters. If

satisfaction of investigating officer is to be treated as determinative then the

purpose of Section 319 would be frustrated.

16. Therefore on the basis of principles as held by Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Para -19 of aforesaid case of Omi @ Omkar Rathore

(supra)

<>

at the time of taking cognizance and before framing of charge

learned trial court could have summoned the complainant and given a

choice to file protest application against non charge sheeting of some

persons who were named in the FIR but if that was not done as in the

present case, then only after recording the evidence that power to

summon other person as proposed accused can be exercised under

Section 319 of Cr.P.C. The power of the trial court under Section 319 of

Cr.P.C. is not controlled or governed by the name or not naming of the

accused persons in the FIR nor it is dependent upon submission of the

charge sheet by the Police against the person concerned. When the

evidence of complainant is found worthy of acceptance then the

satisfaction of the Investigating Officer hardly matters.

17. In the present case i.e. in S.T. No.07 of 2025 in which

7 CRR-2559-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:9365

(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)

<>

JUDGE

<>

proposed accused have filed revision against the order dated 24.5.2025,

it is seen that the charges were already framed on 28.1.2025 and case

was fixed for recording of prosecution evidence on 13.2.2025 and

14.2.2025. Thereafter for recording prosecution evidence it was further

posted on 21.2.2025 and 22.2.2025 and on 7.3.2025 an application was

filed by the respondent no.2-complainant – Jitendra Mishra under

Section 213 of B.N.N.S., 2023, therefore for the reasons mentioned and

law discussed above the impugned order dated 24.5.2025 passed in S.T.

No.07 of 2025 (State of M.P. Vs. Rajju and others) by learned

Additional Sessions Judge, of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge,

Lavkush Nagar, District Chhatarpur, M.P. is set aside

<>

with the direction

that after recording evidence of the complainant and other eye –

witnesses during trial which includes the cross-examination also the

trial court can proceed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. as per law.

18. With the aforesaid direction and observation, this revision is

disposed of.

bks

8 CRR-2559-2025NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:9365