Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh v. Rajendra Pandey S
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:2313 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1188 of 2018 Laxmin Bai W/o Mahesh Lahre Aged About 32 Years R/o- Village Nagoi, Police Station And Tahsil Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., ... Petitioner versus Rajendra Pandey S/o Chandramani Pandey Aged About 36 Years Presently Chief Executive OfÏcer Janpat Panchayat, Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., ... Respondent For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Lavkush Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 14.01.2025 Order on Board PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.01.17 11:09:46 +0530 1. Heard Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Lavkush Kumar Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of CrPC for being aggrieved by the order dated 05.06.2018 passed in Cr. Rev.No.93/18 by the Court of 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur(C.G.), whereby the learned Judge has afÏrmed the order dated 2 26.03.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Takhatpur in an unregistered complaint case (Laxmin Bai Vs. Rajendra Pandey) by which the learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint of the petitioner. 3. The prosecution story, in short, is that the petitioner had filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Takhatpur against the respondent for taking action under Sections 294, 323, 506 (B) of IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 stating that on the date of 22/12/2016 at about 2.00 in the ofÏce of Janpad Panchayat, in a public place the respondent misbehaved with the petitioner and insulted her, due to which she felt very mach badly she even wept, thereafter the accused called his peon, who pushed the complainant from the ofÏce and got her out from the ofÏce of Janpad Panchayat. After that the complainant sit at a some distance of the ofÏce feeling herself insulted at that time tears from the eye was not stopping and it was continued then accused reached there too where he against insulted the complainant and used abusive language and threatened her to call the Police and immediately the accused called the Police and after that no further dispute could raise the complainant come back from there. On next day i.e. 23/12/2016 the complainant went to the Police Station Takhatpur and lodged written report against the accused but the Takhatpur Police did not take any action against the accused and advised the complainant to take shelter of the Court, thereafter the complainant filed a complaint case before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) who vide order dated 26/03/2018 dismissed the unregistered complaint. Against the dismissal of complaint, the complainant filed criminal revision before the Court of 7th Additional 3 Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) vide Cr. Rev. No.93/18 on the ground that the learned revisional Court has committed error in dismissing the complaint. Despite that the complainant has made complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur, AJAK Thana, Bilaspur and C.G Woman Commission and before the M.L.A. Marwahi, neither any action was done, nor enquiry was conducted and only to fulfill formality after 15-20 days of incident the Marwahi Police came to the house of complainant at Village Nadiyapara Ward No.17 at about 7.00 AM and recorded the statement of complainant. But surprisingly just against the statement given by the complainant, the Marwahi Police recorded the opposite statement of complainant and learned revisonal Court has failed to apply his mind in this regard and not done any enquiry in this respect and as such the order of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Takhatpur is vitiated and deserves to be set aside. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has further committed error in appreciating that the complainant has not made any statement regarding the abusive words/language used by the accused. On the contrary the complainant has clearly stated about the misconduct/bad behavior done by the accused and even by his peon. The learned revision Court after perusal of record and arguments of both the parties, found that the learned trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing the dismissed the complaint filed by complainant and dismissed the revision petition vide impugned order dated 05/06/2018. Hence, this petition 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the order of both the trial Court as well as the revisional Court are bad in law. Both the Courts have not followed the provisions of Section 294, 323, 506 (B) of IPC in its proper perspective while passing the impugned judgments. 4 Further, both the Courts have also not followed the provisions of Section 3(1)(10) of Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 while passing the impugned judgments and also not properly followed the provisions of Section 114 (e) of Indian Evidence Act. Both the Courts have failed to appreciate that the complainant has made written complaint not only before the Police Station Takhatpur but also before the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur, AJAK Thana, Bilaspur and C.G Woman Commission which clearly speaks the seriousness of the incident and misbehaviour committed by the accused/respondent. Looking to the misconduct act committed by the accused while performing his duty as a Public Servant against the complainant, he deserved to be tried under Sections 294, 323, 506(B) of IPC and Sections 3(1)(10) of Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the orders of both the trial Courts deserve to be set-aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant and submits that at the relevant point of time the respondent was posted as Chief Executive OfÏcer, Janpad Panchayat, Takhatpur. One Shyammurat Kaushik, who was posted as Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Jaraundha, Block Takhatpur was indulged into political activities and non-teaching work like making complaint to higher authorities, seeking unnecessary information under RTI Act and organizing protest against the authorities for unnecessary demands, therefore, vide order dated 09.09.2016, the Collector, Bilaspur has placed the said Shyammurat Kaushik under suspension, in spite of that, the behaviour of said Shyammurat Kaushik was not changed. On 22.12.2016, the petitioner came in the OfÏce of respondent for 5 sanctioning Indira Awas, but her name was at serial No. 12 in the list of beneficiaries, therefore, the petitioner informed that the benefit of Indira Awas should be given to the petitioner as per the list and thereafter, the respondent advised her to get the detail information from the Incharge Awas Branch. Due to above, the petitioner along with the said Shyammurat Kaushik made false and frivolous complaint against the respondent before the Police Station and also published the false news in the daily news paper, only for putting pressure upon the respondent. The Police authorities have conducted preliminary enquiry and found that no such incident took place and the respondent has not committed any offence, therefore, no further action was taken. He further submits that both the learned Subordinate Courts have recorded concurrent findings that the respondent has not committed any offence. Thus, the instant petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 6. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and on perusal of the judgments/orders of the trial Court as well as the revisional Court, it is clear that after considering all the material facts and after applying mind the order dated 05.06.2018 was passed in Cr.Rev.No.93/18 by the Court of 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.), whereby the learned Judge has afÏrmed the order dated 26.03.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Takhatpur in an unregistered complaint case (Laxmin Bai Vs. Rajendra Pandey) by which the learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint of the petitioner, and there is no illegality and infirmity or jurisdictional error has been caused while passing the impugned order, thus, the 6 impugned order does not call for any interference. 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 8. 9. Preeti