Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:12670 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1403 of 2018 Dinesh S/o Ramavatar Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Navadih, P.S. Trikunda District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. versus ... Petitioner 1 - Pokali Bai D/o Mangal W/o Ramvriksh @ Banwari R/o Village Navadih, P.S. Trikunda District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 2 - V.K. Vijoniya Up Sanchalak Krishi Vibhag, Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioners For Respondents/State : :
Legal Reasoning
registered the complaint holding that no prima facie offence has been alleged to be committed against the petitioner. A revision application was preferred by the petitioner being in which the learned trial Court upheld the decision passed by the J.M.F.C. Ramanujganj District Balrampur, and dismissed the revision. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are contrary to law facts and circumstances of the case. The learned 3 revisional Court erred in law while coming to the conclusion that the order passed by the learned J.M.F.C dismissing the complaint of the petitioner even without registering it. It is further submitted that the learned trial court as well as the learned revisional Court should have considered the evidence on filed along with the complainant which clearly shows that an offence under section 420/34 of I.P.C was committed by the respondents in connivance with each other in order to cause wrongful loss to the government fund. Further the respondent No.2 received back the released fund for construction of Well from respondent No.1 without charging any interest for about 6 years, which goes to show their ulterior motives. The learned trial Court as well as the learned revisional Court ought to have considered that the amount was returned back without any interest in the year 2014 which was released in 2008 i.e after 6 years, and that too after the investigation done by the Teshildar and founding the respondent No.1 guilty of the charge but even after all that the respondent was exonerated from criminal liabilities. 5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that learned trial Court as well as the learned revisional Court have held that since no wrongful loss was done to the petitioner therefore no offence has been committed by the respondents, which is illegal on its face as though no personal allegation were alleged against the petitioner but the learned trial Court as well as the learned revisional Court lost its sight on the fact that any person can lodged a report for commission of a cognizable offence punishable under the penal statutes, The sight has been lost on the aspect that a crime was committed by the respondents which is prima facie evident by the respondents act of returning the government fund after the complaint was made. The learned trial Court ought to have considered that without taking the petitioner’s evidence on record and 4 not registering the complainant, it would be injustice to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. 6. 7. 8. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the complaint lodged against the petitioner, it transpires that no good ground has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner in the present case showing the importance of the present petition to quash the order dated 20.06.2018 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District – Balrampur (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No. R-28/2016 arsing out of the order dated 19.06.2016 passed by learned trial Court concerned. 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. 10. OfÏce is directed to transmit the original records of the trial Court to the trial Court concerned, forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar
Arguments
Mr. Paras Sharma, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. None. Hon'ble Shri , Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha Order on Board 17.03.2025 1. 2. Heard Mr. Paras Sharma, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. None appears on behalf of the private respondent. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of CrPC for being aggrieved with the order dated 20.06.2018 passed by learned 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District – Balrampur (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No. R-28/2016 arsing out of the order dated 19.06.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ramanujganj, District – Balrampur (C.G.). RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 3. The prosecution story, in short, is that a complaint case under section 2 200 Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner against the respondents for the offence under section 420/34 of the IPC in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class. Ramanujganj District Balrampur (C.G) being unregistered Complaint Case alleging that the respondent No.1 taking advantage of her post got sanctioned Rs. 17100/- from her department for construction of Well in the year 2008 but no Well was constructed on the site as per the agreement, thereafter a complaint was made by the petitioner to the concerned department, and in the action taken by department against the respondent No.1 she has deposited back the sanctioned amount of Rs. 17100/- in installment of Rs. 12000/- and Rs. 5100/- through Cheques in the year 2014 but without any interest over the said principal amount which itself goes to show that the misappropriation of the sanctioned amount was done by the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.2 in connivance with each other as he has not Charged any interest on such misappropriated amount, and thereby both have committed an offence under 420/34 of I.P.C in misappropriating the government fund using the illegitimate power of their post, hence they may be punished. A complaint made to S.H.O of P.S Trikunda. Learned trial Court vide its impugned order dated 19.09.2016 has dismissed the complaint of the petitioner and not even