Durg (C.G.) v. K.K. Gupta, S
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:48151 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 419 of 2011 1. 2. 1. 2. 3. 4. Raja Das, S/o Late Ajit Kumar, aged about – 28 years, R/o- Hudko Bhilai, District – Durg (C.G.) Ajit Kumar, S/o- R.P. Singh, aged about – 29 years, R/o- Ramnagar, Bhilai, District – Durg (C.G.) ... Applicants versus K.K. Gupta, S/o- Jagannath Prasad Gupta, aged about 42 years, R/o- Bhilai, District – Durg (C.G.) Abir Mishra, S/o- Satish Mishra, aged about 30 years, R/o- Supela, Bhilai, District – Durg (C.G.) Sachin Jain, S/o- Kant Kumar, aged about 25 years, R/o- Bhilai, District – Durg (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through – District Magistrate, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.09.19 19:40:22 +0530 For Applicants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Soumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer. For Private Respondents : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 18.09.2025 Order on Board 1. This revision has been preferred against the impugned order dated 30.06.2011 passed in Criminal Revision No.169/05 by the learned 1st 2 Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh, arising out of order dated 09.06.05 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, Chhattisgarh in Criminal Case No.300/05 whereby the revisional Court has quashed the order of learned JMFC dated 09.06.05 and remanded back the matter for fresh consideration about the case after filing the case diary of Crime No. 300/2005, and verifying the relevant documents from the Police Station Supela. 2. According to the case of prosecution, respondent No. 1, K.K. Gupta, filed a revision petition before the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, alleging that he had deposited money with B.K.T. International Company, Branch Bhilai, through its officers/employees for the purpose of availing benefits from a holiday resort scheme. Based on his complaint to Police Station Supela, a criminal case was registered on 09.04.2005 against the present applicants and seven other persons under Sections 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), bearing Crime No. 300/2005. The present applicants were taken into custody on 10.04.2005. Their bail applications were rejected by both the learned Magistrate and the Sessions Judge. Subsequently, Police Station Supela moved an application before the learned JMFC, Durg on 12.05.2005 seeking discharge of respondent No.2 (Abir Mishra), which was rejected. Another application was filed on 01.06.2005 for the discharge of the present applicants along with respondents No. 2 and 3 and other co-accused persons, which was also rejected by the JMFC on 07.06.2005. However, as the Police did not seek remand on 09.06.2005, the learned JMFC, Durg, passed an order discharging all accused persons, including the present applicants. Accordingly, they were released from custody on the same day, i.e., 09.06.2005. After a long time, respondent No. 1 filed a revision before the learned A.S.J., Durg. After a delay of nearly five years, 3 on 30.06.2011, the learned 1st A.S.J., Durg quashed the discharge order of the learned JMFC and remanded back the matter for fresh consideration. The learned Court also directed that the case diary of Crime No. 300/2005 be called from Police Station Supela and that relevant documents be verified before passing a fresh judicial order. Hence, this revision petition. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the order passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, on 30.06.2011 in Criminal Revision No. 169/2005 is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, and therefore, is liable to be set aside. The learned JMFC, Durg, had ordered the discharge of all the accused persons on the ground that the Police did not obtain judicial remand on the remand date, i.e., 09.06.2005. As per the provisions of the Cr.P.C. and the settled position of law, there is no option available to the Court in such a situation except to discharge the accused persons. If the investigating agency is not interested in seeking further remand, the Court has no alternative but to discharge the accused in the said crime. Further, respondent No. 1, Shri K.K. Gupta, has no locus-standi to file the criminal revision before any Court of law, as he is merely a complainant in the said criminal case. Since the accused persons were discharged due to the lapse in obtaining remand, and the matter is a State case, the complainant does not have the locus standi to file a criminal revision. Therefore, the revision petition filed by respondent No. 1 is not maintainable under any circumstances. The learned revisional Court has directed the accused persons to appear before the learned trial Court (J.M.F.C., Durg), which amounts to a de-facto reopening of the case. Such action is not permissible under the law. The order passed by the learned revisional Court in the said matter is without proper application of 4 judicial mind and is contrary to established principles of criminal law. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that this Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 30.06.2011 passed by the learned revisional Court. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel as well as the counsel for the Private Respondents, opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and supports the impugned order dated 30.06.2011 passed in Criminal Revision No.169/05 by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh, arising out of order dated 09.06.05 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, Chhattisgarh in Criminal Case No.300/05 whereby the revisional Court has quashed the order of learned JMFC dated 09.06.05 and remanded back the matter for fresh consideration about the case, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant/complainant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely. 6. From perusal of the record, it transpires that an offence under Section 420/34 of the IPC has been registered at Police Station – Supela through prosecution, and however, no judicial remand has been presented against the accused persons. It appears that the accused persons have not been found involved in the said offence, and the prosecution also does not want to take any action against them. Therefore, if the investigating agency is also not interested seeking further remand, and since no judicial remand has been sought through the charge-sheet and the accused persons have not been found involved in the offence while in custody, thus, the present case appears to be a fit case for interference 5 by this Court for exercising the inherent power under Section 397/401 of the CrPC. The impugned order dated 30.06.2011 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No.169/05, remanding back the matter to the learned JMFC, District – Durg, is hereby quashed, and the order passed by the learned JMFC is hereby affirmed. Accordingly, this revision is allowed. Office is directed to send a copy of this order as well as original record to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice 7. 8. Preeti