Major Om Nagha Arjun vs P Dakshinamurthy

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:56096
1 RP-1491-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
th
ON THE 24 OF JULY, 2026
REVIEW PETITION No. 1491 of 2026
MAJOR OM NAGHA ARJUN AND OTHERS
Versus
P DAKSHINAMURTHY AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manish Datt - Senior Advocate with Shri Shubham Mishra -
Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Manish Kumar Verma - Advocate for respondent No.1.
Shri Mukesh Shukla - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
The present review petition has been preferred by the review
petitioners seeking review/recall of the order dated 15.07.2026 passed by this
Court in W.P. No.21807 of 2026, whereby the said writ petition was
disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to the writ petitioner (respondent No.1
herein) to submit a fresh representation before the competent authority and a
consequential direction was issued to the competent authority to consider and
decide the said representation in accordance with law.
2. The undisputed factual background reveals that Ms. Kavita Nagarjun, the
wife of Review Petitioner No. 1, accompanied him to Jabalpur on
09.06.2025 following his transfer to the JAK Rifles Regimental Training
Centre, Jabalpur. According to the review petitioners, after reaching the
Officers' Mess at about 8:00 p.m., both of them had dinner in their allotted
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 27-07-2026
15:33:41

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:56096
2 RP-1491-2026
accommodation. At about 9:40 p.m., while preparing to go for a walk, the

deceased entered the washroom. Shortly thereafter, petitioner No.1 heard a
sound and found her lying unconscious on the bathroom floor. Being a
qualified medical doctor, petitioner No.1 immediately examined her, sought
assistance from Major Mahesh and she was shifted to Military Hospital,
Jabalpur. She was administered cardiopulmonary resuscitation, revived
twice, underwent CT Scan and was admitted to the ICU. Despite continuous
treatment, she succumbed on 10.06.2025 at about 8:10 p.m. Immediately
after the incident, intimation was furnished by the Military Hospital to Police
Station Gora Bazar, Jabalpur where Marg No.16/2025 was registered. The
police conducted an enquiry, recorded statements of witnesses, collected
medical documents and examined the circumstances surrounding the death.
3. The record further reveals that respondent No.1, father of the deceased,
thereafter submitted several complaints before different authorities alleging
that the death of his daughter was suspicious and that petitioner No.1 was
responsible therefor. Those complaints were examined independently by the
Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur, the competent Army authorities including
the Legal Officer of JAK Rifles Regimental Training Centre and also by the
police authorities at Dindigul, Tamil Nadu. According to the review
petitioners, each enquiry consistently concluded that no cognizable offence
was made out and the death had occurred due to natural medical causes
resulting in cardio-respiratory failure.
4. The record further discloses that respondent No.1 thereafter invoked the
jurisdiction of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class by filing an
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 27-07-2026
15:33:41

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:56096
3 RP-1491-2026
application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure

corresponding to Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 seeking registration of an FIR. The learned Magistrate, by order dated
20.01.2026 passed in UNCR No.5064/2025, dismissed the said application
after considering the police report and the material placed before the Court.
Against the said order, respondent No.1 preferred Criminal Revision
No.48/2026 before the Sessions Court, Jabalpur, which was admittedly
pending when W.P. No.21807 of 2026 was instituted before this Court.
5. The record further indicates that respondent No.1 had also approached
the High Court of Judicature at Madras by filing W.P. (Criminal) No.1328 of
2025 wherein substantially similar grievances were raised and by order dated
24.06.2026, the competent authority was directed to enquire into the
representation submitted by respondent No.1 after affording opportunity of
hearing to the concerned parties. Subsequently, respondent No.1 instituted
W.P. No.21807 of 2026 before this Court principally seeking transfer of
investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation or any other independent
agency, constitution of an expert Medical Board, registration of offences and
other consequential reliefs. When the matter was taken up, learned counsel
appearing for the writ petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ
petition with liberty to submit a fresh representation before the competent
authority. Accordingly, by order dated 15.07.2026, this Court, without
entering into the merits of the controversy, permitted withdrawal of the
petition and directed the competent authority to consider the representation
in accordance with law. The present review petition has thereafter been filed
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 27-07-2026
15:33:41

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:56096
4 RP-1491-2026
alleging that the aforesaid order came to be obtained by suppression and

concealment of material facts and previous judicial proceedings.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners submitted that
although the impugned order merely directed consideration of a
representation, the order itself stood vitiated because it had been procured by
suppression of material facts which had a direct bearing upon the exercise of
discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is
submitted that respondent No.1 failed to specifically disclose that
immediately after the death of the deceased a detailed Marg enquiry had
already been conducted by the local police authorities. Apart from the police
enquiry, complaints submitted before the Superintendent of Police, the Army
authorities, the Military authorities and the police authorities at Dindigul had
all been independently examined and every authority had reached a
consistent conclusion that no cognizable offence was made out. It is further
submitted that respondent No.1 deliberately concealed that he had already
invoked the statutory remedy under Section 175(3) BNSS by filing an
application before the Judicial Magistrate First Class seeking registration of
an FIR, which application stood dismissed by a detailed judicial order dated
20.01.2026. It is further submitted that Criminal Revision No.48/2026
challenging the said order was admittedly pending before the Sessions Court
when the writ petition was filed and the issue regarding registration of FIR
was, therefore, already sub-judice before a competent criminal court. It is
also contended that the respondent No.1 failed to make a complete disclosure
regarding the proceedings before the Madras High Court involving
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 27-07-2026
15:33:41

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:56096
5 RP-1491-2026
substantially similar issues. According to learned counsel, had all these

proceedings been candidly brought to the notice of this Court while seeking
withdrawal of the writ petition and consequential directions, this Court would
have examined whether any direction at all deserved to be issued in exercise
of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226. It is argued that
suppression of material facts constitutes abuse of the process of Court. Fraud
vitiates every judicial act and, therefore, the order deserves to be recalled.
7 . Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 opposed the
review petition. It is submitted that the order dated 15.07.2026 merely directs
consideration of a representation and does not adjudicate upon the rights of
the parties. Therefore, no prejudice has been caused to the review petitioners.
It is contended that there has been no suppression of material facts.
According to learned counsel, all relevant proceedings had either been
referred to in the writ petition or uploaded in the reference column of the
electronic filing. It is submitted that the chronology now projected by the
review petitioners is itself contrary to the medical records of the Military
Hospital. Learned counsel further submits that the application under Section
175(3) BNSS and the criminal revision arising therefrom do not curtail the
constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Likewise, the proceedings before the
Madras High Court related substantially to allegations regarding demand of
dowry and, therefore, cannot be treated as identical proceedings.
8. It is further argued that the purpose of filing the writ petition was to seek
an independent investigation by the CBI and constitution of an expert
Medical Board, reliefs which could not have been granted by the Magistrate
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 27-07-2026
15:33:41

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:56096
6 RP-1491-2026
exercising jurisdiction under Section 175(3) BNSS. It is also submitted that

discrepancies appearing in the medical records, the police report and the
post-mortem report justified issuance of a direction permitting submission of
a fresh representation before the Superintendent of Police. According to
learned counsel, the review petition is an attempt to reopen the merits of the
writ petition under the guise of review and no error apparent on the face of
the record has been demonstrated.
9. I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and
perused the material available on record.
10. At the outset, it deserves to be noticed that the order sought to be
reviewed was passed without adjudicating upon the merits of the
controversy. The writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn and this Court
merely directed the competent authority to consider a fresh representation in
accordance with law. Nevertheless, the question before this Court is not
whether the order finally adjudicated the rights of the parties. The real issue
is whether the order itself came to be passed without this Court being
apprised of all material facts having a direct bearing on the exercise of its
discretionary jurisdiction.
11. The record demonstrates that prior to filing of W.P. No.21807 of 2026
several proceedings had admittedly taken place. A Marg enquiry had already
been conducted. Complaints submitted before different authorities including
the Superintendent of Police, Army authorities and other investigating
agencies had been examined. Respondent No.1 had also invoked the statutory
remedy under Section 175(3) BNSS seeking registration of an FIR. The said
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 27-07-2026
15:33:41

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:56096
7 RP-1491-2026
application had been rejected by a reasoned judicial order and the order was

already under challenge before the revisional Court. The respondent had also
approached the Madras High Court in relation to substantially overlapping
grievances. It is true that learned counsel for respondent No.1 has contended
that these proceedings were referred to in the electronic filing reference
column and some documents were uploaded along with the petition.
12. However, the question is not merely whether some documents formed
part of the record. The obligation cast upon a litigant invoking the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court is far more onerous. The writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 is an equitable and discretionary jurisdiction.
Every litigant invoking such jurisdiction is under a solemn obligation to
make full, complete and candid disclosure of every material fact. Such
obligation is not discharged merely by annexing documents or uploading
certain papers along with the petition. It obliges the litigant not only to state
all material facts in the pleadings but also to fairly apprise the Court, at the
time of hearing, of every circumstance and every previous judicial or
statutory proceeding having a bearing upon the controversy. The Court
exercises its extraordinary jurisdiction on the faith that the litigant has
approached the Court with utmost candour and has withheld nothing
material. The foundation of equitable jurisdiction rests upon complete
transparency. Where such confidence is shaken by suppression, concealment
or selective presentation of facts, the very basis upon which judicial
discretion is exercised stands undermined.
13. In the present case, this Court finds that while obtaining the order dated
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 27-07-2026
15:33:41

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:56096
8 RP-1491-2026
15.07.2026, respondent No.1 did not specifically disclose before the Court

that multiple enquiries had already culminated in reports, that the application
under Section 175(3) BNSS seeking registration of FIR had already been
rejected by a judicial order, that a criminal revision challenging the said
order was pending and that proceedings touching substantially similar issues
had also been pursued before another High Court. All these proceedings
possessed a direct nexus with the controversy raised in the writ petition.
They were capable of influencing the Court while considering whether any
direction at all deserved to be issued in exercise of powers under Article 226.
These facts directly touched the maintainability of the writ petition, the
availability of alternative remedies, the possibility of parallel proceedings
and the propriety of issuing further directions. Had these facts been
specifically brought to the notice of this Court at the time when permission
for withdrawal along with consequential directions was sought, this Court
would have examined whether issuance of such direction was warranted at
all or whether the petitioner ought to have been relegated to the remedies
already invoked.
14. This Court is, therefore, unable to accept the submission that mere
uploading of documents in the reference column or casual mention of some
proceedings amounted to full disclosure. Disclosure contemplated while
invoking constitutional jurisdiction must be specific, complete, unambiguous
and brought to the conscious notice of the Court. Material facts cannot be
left to be discovered by the Court by searching through numerous annexures
or electronic filings. The suppression in the present case may not necessarily
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 27-07-2026
15:33:41

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:56096
9 RP-1491-2026
amount to concealment of every document, but there was certainly absence

of fair, specific and candid disclosure regarding proceedings which had a
direct bearing upon the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction by this Court.
15. It is a settled principle that fraud and suppression are an anathema to
the administration of justice. A litigant who seeks equity must come to the
Court with clean hands, disclose every material fact and place before the
Court the entire factual canvas without reservation. Suppression of material
facts strikes at the very root of judicial process because the Court acts upon
the assumption that the litigant has approached it with complete candour. The
review jurisdiction is undoubtedly limited. Ordinarily, review cannot be
employed for rehearing the matter on merits. However, where an order has
been obtained without full disclosure of material facts which would have
materially influenced the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction, the Court
possesses inherent authority to recall such order so that the matter may be
reconsidered after hearing all concerned on the correct factual foundation.
16. The Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar
reported in (2011) 14 SCC 770, has categorically held that suppression of
material facts amounts to abuse of the process of Court and that a litigant
approaching the writ court without clean hands is not entitled to
discretionary relief. The Supreme Court further observed any order obtained
by suppression of material facts deserves to be recalled.
Since the order dated 15.07.2026 came to be passed without the Court being
specifically apprised of all previous proceedings having a direct bearing on
the controversy, this Court is satisfied that the ends of justice require recall of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 27-07-2026
15:33:41

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:56096
10 RP-1491-2026
the said order and restoration of the writ petition for fresh consideration on

merits. It is clarified that this Court has expressed no opinion whatsoever on
the merits of the rival claims raised by either party. Every contention raised
by the parties is left open to be urged before the Court at the time of
rehearing of the writ petition.
17. Accordingly, the review petition is allowed. The order dated
15.07.2026 passed in W.P. No.21807 of 2026 is hereby recalled.
Consequently, W.P. No.21807 of 2026 is restored to its original number and
shall be listed before the appropriate Bench for rehearing in accordance with
law. Consequential proceedings, if any, initiated solely pursuant to the order
dated 15.07.2026 shall also stand set aside. It is made clear that all questions
relating to maintainability, suppression of facts, availability of alternative
remedies, previous proceedings, and the merits of the reliefs claimed in the
writ petition shall remain open for consideration at the time of final hearing.
No opinion has been expressed on the merits of the controversy.
18. In view of the above, the review petition stands disposed of.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI)
JUDGE
pn

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 27-07-2026
15:33:41