Smt Kavita W/O Shri Tej Singh Ghagre vs Tej Singh Ghangere

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26280
1 MCRC-32225-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
st
ON THE 1 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 32225 of 2026
SMT KAVITA W/O SHRI TEJ SINGH GHAGRE
Versus
TEJ SINGH GHANGERE AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Prashant Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Divakar Vyas - Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
This petition under Section 528 of the BNSS has been preferred by the
petitioner assailing the order dated 02.07.2026 passed by the 9th Additional
Sessions Judge, Gwalior, District Gwalior in Criminal Revision No.
189/2026, whereby the learned Revisional Court has affirmed the order dated
15.05.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior.
By the said order, an application for taking additional documents on record
was turned down.
2. Brief facts of the case are that a criminal case at the instance of the
petitioner/complainant was registered at Mahila Police Thana, Gwalior for
offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 294, 506, and 34 of the IPC
against the private respondents on allegations of cruelty, harassment, and
mental as well as physical torture in connection with matrimonial disputes.
Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, investigation was conducted, and a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 9/3/2026
11:05:36 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26280
2 MCRC-32225-2026
charge-sheet has been filed before the competent trial Court, where the

criminal case is presently pending trial.
3. During the pendency of the trial, prosecution evidence was being
recorded, and the examination of the complainant/petitioner had not yet
concluded. During these proceedings, the petitioner moved an application
dated 08.05.2026 before the learned trial Court seeking permission to bring
on record certain documents and material evidence relevant for the just
adjudication of the matter. This application was rejected by the learned trial
Court. Aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court, a revision was filed;
however, the order passed by the learned trial Court was affirmed by the
Revisional Court. Against that order, the present petition under Section 528
of the BNSS has been filed before this Court.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents sought to be
produced by the petitioner included certified copies/statements of material
witnesses, namely Smt. Manju Sharma and Shri Ballu Rajak, whose
statements had been recorded in another connected criminal case bearing
Criminal Case No. 929/2024 under Section 406 of the IPC, arising out of the
same matrimonial dispute and a substantially connected set of facts. The
petitioner specifically contended before the trial Court that the proceedings
under Sections 498-A and 406 of the IPC were intrinsically connected,
having arisen out of the same cause of action and the same chain of events. It
was further contended that the said documents were necessary for effective
adjudication and would assist the Court in arriving at the truth.
5. The petitioner further submitted that no prejudice would be caused
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 9/3/2026
11:05:36 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26280
3 MCRC-32225-2026
to the accused persons if the documents were taken on record, as an adequate

opportunity of rebuttal, cross-examination, and challenge to such documents
would remain available to them during the trial. In such circumstances, both
orders deserve to be set aside.
6. Counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the contentions
made by counsel for the petitioner, submitting that the present petition filed
under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is
misconceived, devoid of merit, and liable to be dismissed at the very
threshold. Both the impugned orders passed by the Courts below are well-
reasoned, legal, and passed strictly in accordance with law, and thus do not
warrant any interference by this Court. It is further submitted that the order
dated 15.05.2026 rejecting the petitioner's application for taking additional
documents on record is purely an interlocutory order. The learned Revisional
Court has therefore rightly held the criminal revision to be not maintainable
under Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C., placing reliance upon the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 486–487 of 2009) (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.
2688-89 of 2005), wherein it has been categorically held that orders passed
on applications for the production of documents or the recalling of witnesses
are interlocutory in nature and are not revisable under Section 397(2) of the
Cr.P.C. The impugned order dated 02.07.2026, dismissing the revision on
this short ground alone, is perfectly legal and calls for no interference.
7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record appended
thereto.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 9/3/2026
11:05:36 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26280
4 MCRC-32225-2026
8. Upon meticulous appreciation of the rival submissions and perusal

of the record, this Court is of the considered view that although the learned
Revisional Court committed no legal illegality in dismissing the revision as
barred by the principle governing interlocutory orders, the strict technicality
ought not to operate as a bar to substantial justice, particularly in
matrimonial matters where connected proceedings run parallelly.
9. Accordingly, the petition under Section 528 of the BNSS is
allowed/disposed of with the following directions:
(i). The impugned orders dated 02.07.2026 and 15.05.2026 are hereby
set aside.
(ii). The petitioner/complainant is permitted to place the-aforesaid
certified copies/statements on record before the trial Court.
(iii). The trial Court shall take the documents on record, subject to
payment of reasonable costs (if deemed fit), and afford adequate opportunity
to the private respondents to rebut the same in accordance with law.
10. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands allowed and
disposed of.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
(LJ*)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 9/3/2026
11:05:36 AM