Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:4993 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 86 of 2018 • Balbhadra Singh S/o Shri Krishnabhan Singh, Aged About 60 Years Complainant of this Case, Caste Tanwar, Caste, Residing At Village and Post Nunera, Police Station and Tahasil Pali, District ( Civil and Revenue District : Korba, Chhattisgarh versus ... Petitioner 1. Deleted (Upendra Kumar Singh) In Compliance of Honble Court Dated 28-01-2025.
Legal Reasoning
2. Tapeshwar Singh Tanwar, S/o Shri Harihar Singh Tanwar, Aged About 68 Years Residing At Village And Post Nunera, Police Station and Tahsil Pali, District ( Civil And Revenue ) District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3. Mahendra Singh Tanwar, S/o Shri Tapeshwar Singh Tanwar, Aged About 38 Years Residing At Village and Post Nunera, Police Station and Tahsil Pali, District ( Civil And Revenue ) - Korba, Chhattisgarh 4. Deleted (Dahraj Singh Tanwar) In Compliance of Honble Court Dated 28-01-2025. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.01.29 19:37:05 +0530 ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vijay K. Deshmukh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri , Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha Order on Board 28.01.2025 1. In the present case, it has been informed that respondent No.1 - Upendra Kumar Singh and respondent No.4 - Dahraj Singh Tanwar have died during the pendency of this petition and the same has been deleted. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition being aggrieved by the 2 impugned order dated 20.09.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Katghora (C.G.) in the Criminal Revision No. 45/2015, which is against the order dated 08.05.2014 whereby the trial Court has discharged all the accused/respondents under Sections 500, 182, 193 and 211 of Indian Penal Code by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pali (Korba) in the complaint case filed by the petitioner. 3. The prosecution story, in short, is that the respondent No.1 - Upendra Kumar Singh (now died) has filed a forged complaint against the present petitioner before the police station for bribes of Rs. 70,000/- for selection of appointment in Siksha Karmi and other respondents/co-accused supported the story projected by Upendra. Further, the other respondents/accused have also given their oral statement on behalf of respondent No. 1 and the complaint was also published in the daily News paper. Further, after the investigation by the concerned police on each point of the filed complaint against the petitioner/applicant, it is revealed that the complaint filed by respondent No.1 is false. Due to such allegations, petitioner got shocked and his public life has deformed. Therefore, he filed complaint before the concerned police and when no action was taken, then the petitioner filed his complaint before Superintendent of Police, Korba. When no any action was taken by the police, he filed a complaint case under section 200 Cr.P.C. before concerned Magistrate against all respondents/accused. The J.M.F.C. Pali after taking primary evidence of complainant and his witnesses' under Sections 202 CR.P.C. registered complaint case under offences under Sections 500, 187, 193 and 211 of the IPC by the JMFC and issued notice to the respondents. After given opportunity to hearings and cross examination to the accused/respondents, evidence recorded and after hearing both petitioner and respondents/accused, the J.M.F.C. Pali 3 discharges the accused/respondents and dismissed the case. Against the said order dated 08/05/2014, petitioner filed criminal revision before A.S.J. Katghora and after hearing both the parties, passed the order dated 20/09/2017 and dismissed the revision. Hence, this application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.1/ Upendra Kumar Singh has filed a false complaint against the present applicant before the police station for bribes of Rs.70000 for selection of appointment in Siksha Karmi. It is the further submitted that the other respondents/accused have also given their oral statement on behalf of respondent No.1 in this regard and after the investigation by the concerned police on each point, a complaint was filed by the respondent No.1 but after interrogation, the complaint filed by the respondent was false. Due to this all allegation, petitioner got shocked and his public life has deformed and he has suffered health problems. Therefore, he filed complaint before the concerned police and when no action was taken then the petitioner filed his complaint before Superintendent of Police, Korba. When no any action was taken by the police, he filed a complaint case under section 200 Cr.P.C. before concerned Magistrate against all respondents/accused. It is further submitted the respondents/accused caused the serious offences on the part of the public and personal image and also the status of the petitioner who is a very honest public servant i.e. elected President of Board of Directors of the Laghu Vanopaj Samiti. Thus, trial Court as well as the revisional court have not properly appreciated the evidence and materials available on record and the order passed by both the Courts is not in accordance with law and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. From the perusal of the records, it transpires that the case involves an 4 accusation among both the petitioner and the respondents wherein it is alleged that the petitioner has taken ₹70,000 from respondent No.1 under the pretext of securing a job. However, the investigation report found that the complaint filed by the petitioner to be false and there is no documentary evidence to support the claim, and the reliability of oral evidence is uncertain. The investigation report concluded that the complaint was false, and therefore, the accused/respondents cannot be prosecuted under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Further, the respondent/other accused persons did not make any false statements, and it cannot be presumed that they made false complaints against Balbhadra Singh. In light of these findings, the Court acquitted the accused persons of the charges. Thus, the revision petition filed by the petitioner Balbhadra Singh was dismissed, and the order dated May 8, 2014, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pali, was upheld. In view of the same, I am not inclined to interfere in this matter as no any good ground has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner to show that the impugned order dated 20.09.2017 passed by the learned Revisional Court is baseless and erroneous. Accordingly, the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits, liable to be and is hereby dismissed. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice 7. 8. Preeti