Sanjeev Kumar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24652
1 Cr.R. No.3281/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
CRIMINAL REVISION No.3281 of 2026
SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Gourav Shrivastava – Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Surendra Pal Singh Alawa – Government Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Shri Navneet Kishore Verma – Advocate for the Objector.
_________________________________________________________
Reserved on : 20/08/2026
Post on : 02/09/2026
_________________________________________________________
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 02-09-2026
17:39:49
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24652
2 Cr.R. No.3281/2026
O R D E R
This Criminal Revision under Section 438 read with Section
442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is
directed against the impugned order dated 22.07.2026. The said
order has been passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
District Ujjain (M.P.) in R.C.T. No.566/2026, arising out of Crime
No.613/2025.
2. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has framed
charges against the revisionist for offences punishable under
Sections 318(4) read with 3(5) and 316(5) read with 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The revisionist has
approached this Court challenging the framing of these specific
charges. The revisionist has preferred the instant revision praying
for setting aside the impugned order and seeking discharge from the
aforesaid charges. The primary challenge is confined to the legal
tenability of framing charges under the aggravated provisions of
criminal breach of trust.
FACTS IN BRIEF
3. The facts necessary for the disposal of this revision are that a
written complaint was submitted by the complainant, Smt. Vijaya
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 02-09-2026
17:39:49
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24652
3 Cr.R. No.3281/2026
Harel. Based on her complaint, an FIR was registered at Police
Station Neelganga, District Ujjain, against the present petitioner and
co-accused Nishikant.
4. As per the prosecution story, the complainant, the petitioner ,
and one other partner had constituted a partnership firm named M/s
MACH RECON. The firm was established for carrying out joint
business activities and maintained a bank account with Axis Bank
for its financial transactions.
5. The complainant alleged that the petitioner, who was
involved in the operation of the firm’s bank account, withdrew and
transferred amounts from the said account on different dates. It is
alleged that the amounts were not properly accounted for and were
utilized without her mutual consent.
6. The complainant claimed a financial loss to the extent of
Rs.1,85,50,500/-, holding the petitioner solely responsible. During
the investigation, the petitioner was arrested on 15.01.2026. After
the investigation was completed, the charge-sheet was filed before
the Competent Court.
7. The learned trial Court, after considering the charge-sheet
and the material on record, framed charges against the petitioner
vide the impugned order. The petitioner abjured his guilt, denied the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 02-09-2026
17:39:49
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24652
4 Cr.R. No.3281/2026
charges, and claimed trial, subsequently filing the present revision
petition before this Court.
CONTENTIONS OF THE REVISIONIST
8. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated and has no nexus with the alleged
offence. It is forcefully contended that the allegations lack material
substance and that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen facing a
frivolous prosecution.
9. It is submitted that the dispute is entirely of a civil nature,
arising out of partnership obligations. The petitioner, the co-
accused, and the complainant are partners with equal shares in the
profit and loss. The complainant allegedly initiated criminal
proceedings to avoid bearing the business losses for the financial
year 2025-2026.
10. The counsel for the revisionist further draws the attention of
this Court to the Partnership Deed, arguing that Clause 16 strictly
mandates arbitration for any dispute. It is submitted that criminal
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 02-09-2026
17:39:49
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24652
5 Cr.R. No.3281/2026
law cannot be used as a tool to settle business scores or exert
pressure in purely commercial disputes.
11. It is also contended that the petitioner had signing authority
over the bank account with the mutual consent of all partners. All
the partners were fully aware of the business transactions.
Furthermore, the accounts reflect that an amount of Rs.51 lakhs has
already been reverted to the complainant.
12. The revisionist submits that Section 316(5) of the BNS is an
aggravated offence applying strictly to high-trust figures like public
servants, bankers, merchants, or agents. The petitioner, being a
mere partner in a business firm, does not fall within these specific
statutory categories.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
13 . Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent and objector
have vehemently opposes the revision. It is submitted that the
petitioner single-handedly operated the firm’s bank account and
misused it to commit serious cyber crimes. As a result, 29 criminal
cases have been registered across multiple states.
14. It is contended that the petitioner siphoned the invested funds
to a separate company, "MACHINE ELEMENTS", operated by
him and his wife. The respondent points out that a lien of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 02-09-2026
17:39:49
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24652
6 Cr.R. No.3281/2026
Rs.2,27,74,687.56 was placed on the firm's account, and the victim
received the following alarming message: A lien has been placed on
your Axis Bank A/c XX3941 in compliance with the notice from
the statutory / regulatory authority. For details, visit nearest branch.
15. The prosecution relies on a written communication dated
13.08.2025. When the bank raised concerns regarding suspicious
large transactions, the petitioner falsely stated: "hereby inform that
transaction happening in my account, as far as credit entries
concerned, I do have some outstanding payment from my local
vendor for export import business and now this transaction are
getting settled out from the local vendor.
16. As far as debit entries concerned, I also do have some
outstanding dues that need to be pay out as early as possible for
which I am making multiple payments to the outstanding vendor on
daily basis.
17. The respondent argues that between 12.08.2025 and
16.08.2025 alone, the petitioner made nearly 400 fraudulent
transactions. It is submitted that the petitioner himself admitted in
his pleadings that he was entrusted with dominion over the
partnership funds, thereby attracting the offence of criminal breach
of trust.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 02-09-2026
17:39:49
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24652
7 Cr.R. No.3281/2026
18. Relying upon settled legal principles, the respondent submits
that a mini-trial is not permissible at the stage of framing charges. It
is argued that the learned Magistrate has correctly evaluated the
available evidence and committed no jurisdictional error in passing
the impugned order.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
19. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by the
learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. At
the outset, it must be noted that revisional jurisdiction is limited.
Interference is justified only when there is a patent illegality,
perversity, or jurisdictional error in the impugned order.
20. As during the argument, the counsel for the petitioner has
constrained its argument regarding quashing of charge section
316(5) of BNS which is correspondent to the section 409 IPC which
reads as:
"(5) Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with
property, or with any dominion over property in his
capacity of a public servant or in the way of his
business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney
or agent commits criminal breach of trust in respect of
that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for
life, or with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine."
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 02-09-2026
17:39:49
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24652
8 Cr.R. No.3281/2026
21. The law related to Section 409 of the IPC has been
enumerated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.
Saminathan & Another v. The State (2026 INSC 772) wherein it
was held that:
"The essential ingredients for invoking Section 405 of IPC are
as follows:
(a) the accused was entrusted with property, or entrusted with
dominion over property;
(b) the accused had dishonestly misappropriated or converted to
their own use that property, or dishonestly used or disposed of
that property or wilfully suffer any other person to do so; and
(c) such misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal should
be in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in
which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract
which the person has made, touching the discharge of such
trust. In other words, for the invocation of the offence of
criminal breach of trust, it is expedient that the use or disposal
of the property is made by a person entrusted with or who has
dominion over the property. Furthermore, such an act must not
only be done dishonestly but also in violation of any direction of
law or any contract, express or implied, relating to carrying out
the trust."
22. Keeping the aforesaid legal proposition in view, this Court
has carefully examined the factual matrix. The relationship between
the complainant and the petitioner is admittedly that of partners in a
commercial firm. They are bound by the terms of a mutually
executed Partnership Deed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 02-09-2026
17:39:49
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24652
9 Cr.R. No.3281/2026
23. In a partnership, every partner holds joint dominion over the
partnership property. The essential condition for invoking the
aggravated charge under the statute is that the entrustment must be
in a specific, highly protected capacity. This capacity must
explicitly be that of a public servant, banker, merchant, factor,
broker, attorney, or agent.
24. The record reveals that there was no such specific
entrustment of property to the petitioner in any of the statutory
capacities mentioned above. Furthermore, Clause 3 of the
Partnership Deed explicitly clarifies the mutual business
relationship between the parties, stating that the main business of
the partnership firm shall be trading and providing repairing
services of Mining and Construction Equipment / Machineries /
Automobiles etc and all other related/allied activities including
agency, consignment etc. However, the partners hereof shall be at
liberty to commence any other business or businesses as agreed
mutually.
25. A plain reading of this clause confirms that the parties were
operating freely as co-businessmen with mutual liberties. The
petitioner’s dominion over the bank account was derived from his
status as a co-partner and a joint owner of the business, rather than
as a legally entrusted agent or broker of the complainant.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 02-09-2026
17:39:49
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24652
10 Cr.R. No.3281/2026
26. The trial Court failed to appreciate this fine legal distinction.
Framing a charge under the aggravated provision requires prima
facie material showing that the accused acted in one of the specific
high-trust professional capacities. The present commercial dispute
between partners does not satisfy this strict statutory requirement.
27. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from a material legal
infirmity and jurisdictional error to the extent of framing the
aggravated charge. In the present case there nothing to show that
any ingredient of criminal breach of trust or 318(5) BNS has been
met out against the petitioner.
28. In the considered opinion of this Court, allowing the trial to
proceed under the aggravated section would result in a miscarriage
of justice. Accordingly, interference in the revisional jurisdiction of
this Court is clearly warranted to secure the ends of justice.
29. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is partly allowed . The
impugned order passed by the trial court dated 22/07/2026 is set
aside only to the extent of framing the charge under Section 318(5)
of the BNS. Consequently, the petitioner stands discharged from the
charge under Section 318(5) of the BNS as leveled against him.
However, the learned trial court may proceed with the trial in
respect of the charge under Section 318(4) of the BNS in
accordance with law.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 02-09-2026
17:39:49
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24652
11 Cr.R. No.3281/2026
30. The revision petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
31. A copy of this order be transmitted to the learned trial court
for information and necessary compliance.
(Jai Kumar Pillai)
Judge
Aiyer*/PS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 02-09-2026
17:39:49