Parth Kumar Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18019
1 Cr.R. No.2569/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
CRIMINAL REVISION No.2569/2026
Parth Kumar Tiwari
Versus
The State of M.P. and another
Appearance:
Shri Gauransh Vyas - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ambuj Patel – Government Advocate for respondent No.1/State.
_________________________________________________________
Reserved on : 02/07/2026
Post on : 07/07/2026
_________________________________________________________
O R D E R
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 08-07-2026
12:33:40
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18019
2 Cr.R. No.2569/2026
This Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred by the
Revisionist under Section 438 readwith Sections 442 and 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The revision
assails the impugned order dated 06.05.2026 passed by the Special
Judge (OAW) and 8th Additional Sessions Judge, District Indore,
M.P. in Sessions Trial No.260 of 2026.
2. By way of the impugned order, the learned Trial Court
proceeded to frame charges against the Revisionist. The Revisionist
seeks the quashing of the said order, praying that the Protest
Petition filed by him be heard and adjudicated on its merits prior to
advancing to the stage of framing of charges.
3. The factual matrix, as strictly discernible from the record,
reveals that an FIR bearing No.628/2025 was registered on
30.10.2025 at Police Station Rau, District Indore. The prosecutrix
alleged that during her employment in Pithampur, she became
acquainted with the Revisionist, who proposed marriage. It is
alleged that upon this assurance of marriage, the Revisionist forced
her into a physical relationship without her free consent, frequently
calling her to Indore for this purpose even after she relocated.
4. The prosecution case further alleges that the Revisionist
deliberately evaded discussions of marriage with her family and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 08-07-2026
12:33:40
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18019
3 Cr.R. No.2569/2026
eventually refused to marry her over the phone on 27.10.2025.
Upon conclusion of the investigation, the investigating agency filed
a charge-sheet on 27.12.2025, recording a finding that prima facie
evidence existed against the Revisionist for an offence punishable
under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
5. The learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the
charge-sheet vide order dated 12.02.2026. Aggrieved by the
cognizance order and the manner of investigation, the Revisionist
preferred a Protest Petition on 05.05.2026 before the learned 8th
Additional Sessions Judge. However, on 06.05.2026, the learned
Trial Court proceeded to frame charges under Sections 69 and 296
of the BNS, leading to the institution of the present revision
petition.
7. Assailing the impugned order, the Revisionist contends that
the FIR was registered on the basis of a maliciously false and
fictitious complaint. It is submitted that the investigating authorities
conducted a superficial and mala fide investigation, intentionally
planting false evidence and relying on interested witnesses closely
connected with the prosecutrix. To substantiate this, the Revisionist
points out that the sole purported independent witness the erstwhile
landlord of the Revisionist has sworn an affidavit denying having
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 08-07-2026
12:33:40
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18019
4 Cr.R. No.2569/2026
made any statement to the police and disputing his signature on the
recorded statement.
8. The core procedural grievance of the Revisionist is that a
Protest Petition was specifically filed on 05.05.2026 to challenge
the charge-sheet and the cognizance order. The said petition was
listed and heard on 06.05.2026, with orders reserved to be
pronounced later that day. However, instead of adjudicating upon
the objections raised in the Protest Petition, the learned Trial Court
erroneously proceeded to frame charges, thereby rendering the
Protest Petition virtually infructuous and causing grave prejudice to
the accused.
9. It is further argued that the impugned order framing charges
is manifestly arbitrary and contrary to settled principles of law as it
was passed without affording the Revisionist an opportunity of
hearing on the point of charge. The Revisionist asserts that the FIR
and the charge-sheet only attributed allegations under Section 69 of
the BNS, 2023. However, the Trial Court traveled beyond the
record by framing an additional charge under Section 296 of the
BNS, 2023, despite a complete absence of any allegations or
material capable of attracting the ingredients of the said offence.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 08-07-2026
12:33:40
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18019
5 Cr.R. No.2569/2026
10. The respondent-State has strongly opposed the present
revision petition. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits
that the Trial Court's order does not suffer from any jurisdictional
error, illegality, or material irregularity. It is contended that the
subordinate court was perfectly justified in proceeding to frame the
charges as the material on record demonstrates a strong prima facie
case.
11. The State further asserts that the accused repeatedly had
sexual intercourse with the victim by deceptive means and uttered
obscene words in a public place. Therefore, the addition of Section
296 of the BNS at the stage of framing charges is well-supported by
the evidence on record, and no interference is warranted in the well-
reasoned order of the trial Court.
12. Heard.
13. Before delving into the merits of the specific challenges
raised, it is imperative to delineate the boundaries of revisional
jurisdiction. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court is supervisory
in nature, intended solely to correct patent defects in jurisdiction,
manifest errors of law, or procedural irregularities that lead to a
gross miscarriage of justice. The Revisional Court does not function
as a regular Court of Appeal.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 08-07-2026
12:33:40
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18019
6 Cr.R. No.2569/2026
14. To resolve the present issues, it is apposite to examine the
reasoning adopted by the Trial Court. The impugned order
explicitly records the arguments of the defense counsel, who
submitted that the accused had committed no crime, was falsely
implicated, and that there was no evidence on record, thereby
seeking an acquittal/discharge. The order also records the
Prosecutor's rebuttal that sufficient evidence existed to frame
charges.
15. The Trial Court, after examining the charge-sheet and the
accompanying documents, observed that the accused is charged
with repeatedly having sexual intercourse with the victim by
deceptive means without the intention of fulfilling the promise of
marriage. Crucially, the Trial Court also noted the specific
allegation that the accused uttered obscene words to the victim in a
public place, causing annoyance. Based on this, the Court found
sufficient grounds to frame charges under Sections 69 and 296 of
the BNS.
16. Elaborating upon the core legal contention regarding the
Protest Petition, it must be understood that the statutory scheme
governing protest petitions primarily applies when a Magistrate
intends to accept a negative police report (closure report) and drop
the proceedings. In such instances, providing notice to the original
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 08-07-2026
12:33:40
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18019
7 Cr.R. No.2569/2026
informant and granting them an opportunity to be heard via a
protest petition is mandatory.
17. However, when the investigating agency files a positive
charge-sheet, the accused does not have a statutory right to file a
"Protest Petition" demanding a mini-trial before the framing of
charges. The remedy available to the accused at this stage is to
argue for discharge based on the material on record. The arguments
raised by the Revisionist in his so-called Protest Petition were, in
essence, arguments for discharge. By finding prima facie material
and proceeding to frame charges, the Trial Court impliedly
considered and rejected the plea for discharge.
18. Furthermore, regarding the framing of the additional charge
under Section 296 of the BNS (uttering obscene words in a public
place), the law is well-settled that the Trial Court is not strictly
bound by the penal sections mentioned in the FIR or the police
report. If the contents of the charge-sheet and witness statements
disclose the commission of another offence, the Trial Court is well
within its jurisdiction to frame a charge for the same. The impugned
order clearly records the factual basis for invoking Section 296.
19. This Court finds that the impugned order is well-reasoned,
legally sound, and strictly aligned with procedural mandates. The
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 08-07-2026
12:33:40
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18019
8 Cr.R. No.2569/2026
learned Trial Court correctly evaluated the material on record to
arrive at a prima facie satisfaction for framing charges under
Sections 69 and 296 of the BNS. The assertion that the Revisionist
was denied an opportunity to be heard on the point of charge is
belied by the impugned order itself, which explicitly notes the
defense counsel's arguments.
20. This Court further finds that there is no manifest error,
jurisdictional defect, or patent illegality upon the face of the order
passed by the lower court. The non-disposal of the accused's
"Protest Petition" through a separate, elaborate order prior to
framing charges does not vitiate the proceedings, nor does it
occasion any failure of justice, as the very act of framing charges
demonstrates the Court's judicial determination that a prima facie
case exists, negating the grounds for discharge.
21. Resultantly, the challenge raised by the Revisionist is devoid
of merit and fails on all counts. No grounds exist to interfere with
the well-considered order of the subordinate court in the exercise of
revisional jurisdiction.
22. The Criminal Revision is accordingly dismissed . The
impugned order dated 06.05.2026 passed by the. Special Judge
(OAW) and 8th Additional Sessions Judge, District Indore in ST.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 08-07-2026
12:33:40
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18019
9 Cr.R. No.2569/2026
No.260 of 2026 is hereby affirmed . The Trial Court shall proceed
with the trial and recording of prosecution evidence in accordance
with the law, uninfluenced by any observations made herein on the
merits of the case.
(Jai Kumar Pillai)
Judge
Aiyer*/PS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 08-07-2026
12:33:40