Arjun Khatik vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86821
1 MCRC-24369-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
rd
ON THE 23 OF OCTOBER, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 24369 of 2025
CNR No.: MPHC010372162025
ARJUN KHATIK
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pradeep Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Smt. Nalini Gurung - Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Amit Dubey - Advocate for the respondent No. 2to6.
ORDER
The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “the BNSS”), has been preferred by the
applicant challenging the order dated 25.03.2025 (Annexure A/5), passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Teonthar, District Rewa, whereby
the application filed by the applicant seeking summoning of call detail
records (CDRs) of respondent Nos. 2 to 6 in connection with the death of
Shivnath Manjhi has been rejected.
2. The applicant's case is that Shivnath Manjhi was residing at his
house and was allegedly murdered on 16.05.2023 when the applicant was
away. The dead body was allegedly thrown at the applicant's house. Upon
receiving information regarding the incident, the applicant returned to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY
Signing time: 30-10-2026
11:21:42

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86821
2 MCRC-24369-2025
village and approached the police authorities; however, according to him, no

effective action was taken against respondent Nos. 2 to 6. The son of the
deceased, Rajbahadur, also lodged a report with Police Station Jawa and
submitted representations to the Superintendent of Police, Rewa, seeking
action against the alleged offenders. Thereafter, the applicant instituted a
complaint under Section 103 of the BNSS against respondent Nos. 2 to 6
(Annexure A/3). During the proceedings, he filed an application (Annexure
A/4) seeking the call detail records of respondent Nos. 2 to 6 for the six
months preceding the death of the deceased, contending that the records
were necessary to ascertain their communication with the deceased and to
bring the circumstances surrounding the incident to light. The learned
Magistrate rejected the application by the impugned order.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the call detail records
are material to the proper investigation and adjudication of the complaint,
particularly when the police have allegedly failed to take effective action
against the persons named by the applicant. It is contended that the learned
Magistrate rejected the application prematurely, without appreciating the
relevance of the electronic evidence sought to be obtained. Accordingly, a
prayer is made to set aside the impugned order and direct the trial Court to
summon the requisite call detail records.
4. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State opposes the petition
and supports the impugned order, submitting that the application was filed
without any supporting material establishing the necessity of summoning the
call detail records at the present stage. It is further submitted that the police
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY
Signing time: 30-10-2026
11:21:42

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86821
3 MCRC-24369-2025
report on the complaint is yet to be received and no witness has been

examined on behalf of the complainant before the trial Court.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
6. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS is intended
to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and secure the ends of justice.
While the Court may permit the production of relevant electronic evidence
when its necessity is established, such a direction cannot be issued merely on
the basis of suspicion or a general assertion that the evidence may disclose
the involvement of the persons concerned. The relevance of the material
sought and the stage of the proceedings are material considerations.
7. In the present case, the learned Magistrate has recorded that the
report sought from Police Station Jawa had not been received and that no
witness had yet been examined on behalf of the complainant. The application
for call detail records was rejected on the ground that, in the absence of
supporting material beyond the complainant's oral assertions and suspicion,
summoning such records was not justified at that stage. The applicant has not
demonstrated any specific material establishing that the call detail records of
respondent Nos. 2 to 6 for the entire period sought are necessary for deciding
the complaint at its present stage. The mere allegation that the police have
not taken effective action does not, by itself, warrant a direction for
production of the requested records.
8. In these circumstances, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in
the impugned order warranting interference. However, rejection of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY
Signing time: 30-10-2026
11:21:42

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86821
4 MCRC-24369-2025
application at this stage shall not preclude the applicant from renewing the

request before the learned Magistrate at an appropriate stage, by
demonstrating the relevance and necessity of the specific electronic records
sought, in accordance with law. The learned Magistrate shall consider any
such application independently on its own merits.
9. Consequently, the petition stands dismissed, with the aforesaid
liberty.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI)
JUDGE
Prachi
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY
Signing time: 30-10-2026
11:21:42