Sourav Dangi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA YADAV
ON THE 3rd OF NOVEMBER, 2026
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 712 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC030041412026
SOURAV DANGI AND ANR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR
Appearance:
Shri R.K. Sharma – Senior Advocate along with Shri Abhijeet
Singh Tomar- Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Mohit Shivhare - PP for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Arvind Dudawat- Senior Advocate along with Shri Rahul
Jha- Advocate for complainant.
ORDER
1. This criminal revision under Section 438/442 of BNSS
(corresponding to Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C.) has been filed
by the petitioners, challenging the impugned order dated
22.01.2026 passed by I ASJ, Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha, in
S.T. No. 40/2025; whereby, charges have been framed against
petitioner No. 1, namely, Sourav Dangi under Sections 296,
109/3(5), 351(2), 331(2) & 125 of BNS; and against petitioner
No. 2, namely, Ashish Thakur, under Sections 296, 351(2) &
331(2)/3(5) of BNS.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNEEL DUBEY
Signing time: 06-11-2026
12:12:14

2
1.1 At the outset, learned senior counsel for petitioners submitted
that the challenge in the present revision is confined to the
charges framed under Sections 109/3(5) and 331(2) of the
BNS against petitioner No. 1, namely, Sourav Dangi, and
under Section 331(2)/3(5) of BNS against petitioner No. 2,
namely, Ashish Thakur.
2. The prosecution case, in short, as narrated in FIR, is that on
29.01.2025, at around 09:00 PM, the petitioners, along with
other co-accused arrived at the house of complainant, Smt.
Rambai Dangi, in a four-wheeler. Owing to a previous dispute,
the accused persons allegedly trespassed into the premises,
hurled filthy abuses and demanded that the complainant's
husband, Rajesh, and son, Anurag, be brought out, while
threatening to kill them. Upon being informed that they were
at the farm, petitioner No. 1, namely, Sourav Dangi, allegedly
fired a 12-bore firearm, one shot outside the house and another
towards the gate, whereafter the accused persons fled from the
spot. Accordingly, the case was registered against the accused
persons under Sections 296, 351(2), 125, 331(2), and 3(5) of
BNS.
2.1 Thereafter, the statements of the complainant and her daughter,
Suhani, were recorded before the Magistrate on 04/03/2025
under Section 183 of BNSS, wherein they specifically alleged
that petitioner No. 1, namely, Sourav Dangi, had fired directly
at the complainant and that she narrowly escaped by stepping
backwards, causing the bullet to hit the wall. They further
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNEEL DUBEY
Signing time: 06-11-2026
12:12:14

3
stated that the accused persons had threatened to eliminate
their family members before leaving the spot.
2.2 During investigation, two spot maps were prepared. The first
spot map, prepared on 06.02.2025, indicated the place of aerial
firing (Point B), the place from where an empty 12-bore
cartridge was recovered (Point C), and the place where pellet
marks were allegedly found (Point D). Dissatisfied with the
initial investigation, the complainant approached senior police
officials, pursuant to which the SDOP conducted a spot
inquiry on 23.03.2025 and directed the preparation of a second
spot map which was prepared on 26.03.2025. The said map
marked the firing spot as Point A (20 feet from the kitchen net)
and the place where the complainant was standing as Point B
(13 feet from the kitchen net), while the entrance gate was
marked as Point C. No pellets were found inside the house,
courtyard, sloping portion, or green net. However, suspected
firearm marks (12 × 12 inches) were found on the outer
boundary wall, at a height of 5 feet, from where scrapings
were collected for FSL examination. Thereafter, on the
directions of the SDOP, the offence under Section 109 of the
BNS was added to the case.
2.3 Upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was
filed before the competent Court and the case was committed
to the learned Trial Court. Vide the impugned order dated
22.01.2026, the learned Trial Court framed charges against the
petitioners, which are under challenge in the present petition.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNEEL DUBEY
Signing time: 06-11-2026
12:12:14

4
3. To challenge the charges framed under Sections 109 and
331(2) of BNS, learned senior counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the present FIR was lodged after an
unexplained delay of two days and was, in fact, a counterblast
to earlier cross-FIR bearing Crime No. 22/2025, lodged by
petitioner No. 1 against the son of complainant on 29.01.2025
at 04:30 PM, with the intention of pressurizing the petitioners
to enter into a compromise by setting up a false and concocted
version of the incident.
3.1 Learned senior counsel for petitioners argued that the FIR
merely alleges discharge of a firearm, without any specific
allegation that it was fired with the intention to cause death.
Section 109 of BNS was not invoked initially in the FIR, and
even the DPO, in his written opinion, had opined that its
ingredients were not made out. However, disregarding the said
opinion, the SDOP directed its addition on 26.03.2025. It was
contended that such addition was an afterthought, particularly
when the subsequent statements of the complainant party
under Section 183 of BNSS contained material improvements
over the FIR, indicating subsequent development of the
prosecution story to implicate the petitioners.
3.2 Referring to the second spot map dated 26.03.2025, learned
senior counsel for petitioners submitted that the firearm was
allegedly discharged in the air from a distance of
approximately 20 feet (Point A), with the projectile striking
the outer boundary wall at a height of 5 feet. No person
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNEEL DUBEY
Signing time: 06-11-2026
12:12:14

5
sustained any injury, no firearm was recovered from the
petitioners, and no pellets were found inside the house,
courtyard or green net. The empty cartridge was recovered
from the pathway outside the house, while the FSL scrapings
were collected from the outer boundary wall. These
circumstances indicate that the firearm was not aimed at any
person, thereby failing to attract Section 109 of BNS.
Similarly, the charge under Section 331(2) of the BNS is
equally unsustainable, as neither the recovery of the cartridge
from the pathway nor the marks on the outer boundary wall
establish the petitioners' entry into the residential premises.
3.3 Learned senior counsel for the petitioners, placing reliance
upon Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, AIR 1979
SC 366; Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra,
AIR 2002 SC 564; Yogesh alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi v.
State of Maharashtra, (2008) 10 SCC 394; P. Vijayan v.
State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398; and Shikha Dwivedi v.
State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 (3) MPLJ (Cri) 99 , lastly
submitted that the Court is required to independently sift the
material on record to determine whether it gives rise to a grave
suspicion against the accused as mere suspicion is insufficient
to frame a charge and, where two views are reasonably
possible, the view favourable to the accused ought to be
adopted. The Court must neither conduct a mini-trial nor act as
a mere mouthpiece or post office of the prosecution.
3.4 On these grounds, learned senior counsel for petitioners
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNEEL DUBEY
Signing time: 06-11-2026
12:12:14

6
prayed that the impugned order, to the extent of framing
charges under Sections 109/3(5) and 331(2) of the BNS
against petitioner No. 1 and under Section 331(2)/3(5) of the
BNS against petitioner No. 2, be set aside.
4. Per contra , the learned Public Prosecutor, as well as the
learned senior counsel for the complainant, opposed the prayer
and supported the impugned order by contending that the
prosecution case is founded on specific allegations of trespass,
abuse, criminal intimidation and discharge of a firearm by
petitioner No.1, Sourav Dangi, arising out of previous enmity.
It was further submitted that the prosecution case regarding
the firing and the bullet striking the boundary wall finds
corroboration from the physical evidence, namely, recovery of
the empty 12-bore cartridge and the firearm marks
documented on the boundary wall by the SDOP. Thus, the
material on record gives rise to grave suspicion against the
petitioners and sufficiently justifies the aforesaid charges
framed by the learned Trial Court.
4.1 Countering the alleged discrepancy between FIR and
statements recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, relying upon
State of U.P. v. Krishna Master, 2010 (12) SCC 324 , it was
submitted that an FIR is not an encyclopedia of the
prosecution case and need not disclose every minute detail of
occurrence. It was submitted that the complete sequence of
events and intention to commit murder emerged from
statements of complainant and other witnesses recorded before
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNEEL DUBEY
Signing time: 06-11-2026
12:12:14

7
Magistrate under Section 183 of BNSS on 04.03.2025. In her
statement, the complainant categorically stated that the
petitioner aimed and fired directly at her and she narrowly
escaped by stepping backwards, whereupon the bullet struck
the wall. The evidentiary value of these statements and their
variance, if any, with the initial FIR are matters of appreciation
at trial and cannot, at this stage, constitute a ground for
discharge, as a meticulous examination or roving inquiry into
the evidence would amount to conducting a mini-trial, which
is impermissible at this stage.
5. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the impugned
order, charge-sheet as well as the other material available on
record.
6. It is well-settled that the stage of framing of charge is distinct
from that of recording a judgment of conviction. At this stage,
the Court is required to sift and consider police report,
accompanying documents and submissions of parties to
determine whether the material, taken at face value, discloses
ingredients of alleged offence and gives rise to a prima facie
case or grave suspicion against accused. While the Court is
neither to act as a mere post office of prosecution nor to
conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence, it must
consider the broad probabilities, the overall effect of the
material on record and any glaring infirmities appearing
therein, without undertaking a roving inquiry or examining the
credibility and probative value of the evidence, which are
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNEEL DUBEY
Signing time: 06-11-2026
12:12:14

8
matters for trial.
7. It is equally well-settled that revisional jurisdiction is narrow
and supervisory in nature and, when invoked against an order
framing charge, must be exercised with caution, restraint and
circumspection. The High Court does not sit as a court of
appeal or undertake re-appreciation of the evidence.
Interference is warranted only where the impugned order is
perverse, wholly without jurisdiction or based on a manifest
misreading of the record resulting in miscarriage of justice.
Where two views are possible and the view taken by the Trial
Court is plausible and reasonable, the revisional Court cannot
substitute its own opinion, and the order framing charge must
ordinarily be allowed to stand.
8. Tested on the aforesaid principles, the challenge confined to
the charges framed under Sections 109/3(5) and 331(2) of the
BNS against petitioner No.1, namely, Sourav Dangi and under
Section 331(2)/3(5) of BNS against petitioner No. 2, namely,
Ashish Thakur does not persuade this Court to interfere with
the impugned order as the perusal of the charge-sheet reveals
that the complainant and her daughter, in their statements
recorded before the Magistrate on 04/03/2025 under Section
183 of BNSS, have specifically alleged that the accused
persons trespassed into their house, hurled abuses and
threatened to eliminate their family members. More
particularly, petitioner No. 1 is alleged to have aimed and fired
a 12-bore firearm directly at the complainant, who narrowly
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNEEL DUBEY
Signing time: 06-11-2026
12:12:14

9
escaped by stepping backwards, whereupon the bullet struck
the boundary wall. These statements, read with the material
relating to the recovery of an empty 12-bore cartridge and the
suspected firearm marks (12×12 inches), documented on the
boundary wall at a height of 5 feet in the spot map prepared on
26.03.2025, constitute relevant material which cannot be
altogether ignored at the stage of framing of charge and is
prima facie capable of giving rise to grave suspicion regarding
the commission of the alleged offences by the petitioners.
9. The contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners
regarding delay of two days in lodging the FIR; its alleged
nature as a counterblast to the earlier cross-FIR; the material
improvements in the subsequent statements recorded before
Magistrate under Section 183 of BNSS and the extent of
variance between the initial FIR and such statements; the
allegation that firearm was discharged in the air from a
distance of approximately 20 feet (Point A), with the projectile
striking the outer boundary wall at a height of 5 feet; the
absence of pellets inside the residential premises; the recovery
of empty cartridge from the pathway; the suspected firearm
marks on outer boundary wall, which allegedly do not
establish the petitioners' entry into the residential premises; the
absence of any injury to the complainant; and the
disagreement between DPO and SDOP regarding the addition
of Section 109 of BNS, essentially involve an appreciation of
factual circumstances of the occurrence and the evidentiary
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNEEL DUBEY
Signing time: 06-11-2026
12:12:14

10
significance of the material collected during investigation.
These aspects are required to be examined by the learned Trial
Court in the light of the evidence adduced during trial. At the
stage of framing of charges, this Court cannot undertake a
meticulous evaluation of such circumstances to conclusively
negate the prosecution case, as doing so would amount to
conducting a mini-trial, which is impermissible in law. The
aforesaid submissions, therefore, do not warrant interference
with the impugned order.
10. Further, whether the occurrence took place in the manner
alleged in the FIR or as subsequently elaborated in the
statements of the complainant and other witnesses recorded
before the Magistrate under Section 183 of the BNSS, and the
evidentiary value to be attached to such versions; whether
petitioner No. 1 fired at the complainant with the intention or
knowledge contemplated under Section 109 of the BNS or
whether the act constitutes an offence of a lesser nature; and
whether the alleged entry fulfils the ingredients of Section
331(2) of the BNS, are all matters which fall for determination
by the learned Trial Court on the basis of the evidence
adduced during trial.
11. Consequently, the material available on record admits of two
possible factual perspectives. The petitioners contend that the
circumstances emerging from the FIR as well as the
investigation, including the recovery of the empty cartridge
from the pathway, the absence of pellets inside the residential
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNEEL DUBEY
Signing time: 06-11-2026
12:12:14

11
premises and the delay in lodging the cross-FIR, indicate that
there was neither any intention to kill the complainant nor any
unlawful entry into the residential premises. Conversely, the
prosecution relies upon the specific allegations made by
complainant and other witnesses in their statements recorded
under Section 183 BNSS before the Magistrate regarding the
firing of gunshots, which find corroboration in the firearm
marks documented on the boundary wall, in support of the
charges of attempt to murder and house-trespass. Where two
such competing views are reasonably possible at the stage of
framing of charge, the revisional Court cannot undertake a
comparative assessment of the probative value of the material
on record or substitute its own view for the plausible view
taken by the learned Trial Court.
12. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the
petitioners, though laying down the correct proposition of law,
are of no assistance to the petitioners in view of the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the present case.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that the
impugned order dated 22.01.2026 does not suffer from any
illegality, perversity, impropriety or jurisdictional error
warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its
revisional jurisdiction.
14. Consequently, the present criminal revision, being devoid of
merits, is hereby dismissed .
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNEEL DUBEY
Signing time: 06-11-2026
12:12:14

12
15. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any final
opinion on the merits of the matter. The observations made
hereinabove are strictly confined to the legality of the
impugned order of framing charges. The Trial Court shall
proceed with the trial in accordance with the law, uninfluenced
by any observations made in this order.
16. A copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court concerned for
information and necessary compliance.
(Pushpendra Yadav)
Judge
(Dubey)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNEEL DUBEY
Signing time: 06-11-2026
12:12:14