Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:8175 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 79 of 2015 Bhagbali Ratre S/o Darshan Ratre Aged About 82 Years R/o Village Chicha, Tah. Patan, Civil And Rev. Distt. Durg C.G. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN versus ... Applicant(s) 1 - R.K. Sahu Sub Inspector Police Station Patan, Distt. Durg C.G. 2 - Dhanajit S/o Derharam Aged About 75 Years R/o Village Chicha, Tah. Patan, Distt. Durg C.G. 3 - Mahan Lal S/o Dhanajit Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Chicha, Tah. Patan, Distt. Durg C.G. 4 - Shashikala W/o Makhan Lal Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Chicha, Tah. Patan, Distt. Durg C.G. ... Non-Applicant(s)
Legal Reasoning
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar holding the brief of Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17 /02/2025 1. Heard Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. B.P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. 2 2. The present criminal revision has been filed by the applicant seeking following relief: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this application may further be pleased to set-aside the order passed by learned court below on 28.10.2014, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant has preferred a complaint case before learned Special Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure against the non-applicants on 07.03.2013, alleging that non-applicant No. 1 is not a member of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe as he belongs to Sahu caste. As per the complaint case his land Khasra No. 603, area 0.10 hectare is situated at village Chicha District - Durg which was purchased by Bhagwati Satnami by registered sale deed in the year 1996 and after attestation and demarcation it was possessed by Bhagwati over the said land. That due to the road, the villagers as well as non-applicant No. 2 have moved several disputes and cases upto the revenue board Bilaspur and at last the revenue board Bilaspur has passed the order on 16.11.2010 and this order become finality. On 06.12.2010 the applicant was trying to dig the land and on that date, non-applicant No. 2 to 4 came there and abused him and also committed marpit and tried to disturb the peaceful possession and due to the said act of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 his right shoulder has been got fractured and he has received so many injuries over the body. 4. The non-applicant No. 2 has lodged the false complaint before 3 Police Station Patan, wherein a false case has been registered against the applicant. The non-applicant No. 1 was the Sub- Inspector of the same Police Station and he has helped the non- applicant No. 2 to lodge and register a false case and he was bias to investigate the matter in proper way and the applicant has shown the order passed by revenue board Bilaspur to the respondent No. 1, but the same can be ignored by non-applicant No. 1 and with the collusion of non-applicant No. 2, he has not conducted MLC of the applicant neither he has lodged any report against the other non-applicants and he was helping the other non-applicant for take over the possession upon the land in question. Before filing the complaint case the applicant has made complaint before Superintendent of Police, District Durg, Inspector General of Police, District Durg range repeated complaint before Superintendent of Police, District Durg on the different dates. The applicant has received an information through R.T.I. Act 2005, on 24.11.2012, that no case is lodge against R.K. Sahu (Non- Applicant No. 1), the police in-charge Patan. Thereafter, the order passed by Chhattisgarh Revenue Board, Bilaspur on 16.11.2010, in which the revision filed by the applicant was allowed. One complaint was filed by the applicant before police in-charge ST/ SC Special Thana Durg on 15.06.2012. 5. The applicant had filed one deposition of Dr. B. Kannojiya Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre Purena, Police Station Bhilai-3, in a 4 case of state Vs. Shashikala Bai, in which the applicant was the complainant and in that case Dr. V. Kannojiya is witness No. 5 relating to the same dispute. It is respectfully submitted that the Dr. who has examined the applicant was found that there is a grievous injury received on the body of the applicant over the right shoulder, left shoulder, left thigh and in para 2 it was proved that according to X-Ray it was found fractured. Initially, the case was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, but due to the amendment in the SC/ST Act it has been transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge. Hence this revision petition. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned trial Court failed to consider a crucial piece of evidence. Specifically, Witness No. 2, Gajanand Sahu, testified in paragraphs 1 and 2 that Non- applicant Nos. 2 to 4 committed marpit (physical assault) against the applicant, resulting in a fractured of his right shoulder. The applicant also corroborated this fact before the trial Court. He further submits that applicant is a senior citizen, aged about 82 years, which makes them a vulnerable individual who deserves special consideration. There are serious allegations against non- applicant No. 1, who is a Police Sub-Inspector, which raises concerns about the potential for abuse of power and miscarriage of justice. He also submits that learned trial Court failed to consider a crucial fact that the revenue board's order had established that the applicant was in possession of the land in question, and Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 had created an obstruction 5 on the said land and physically assaulted the applicant. The applicant is contending that this fact clearly demonstrates that non-applicant Nos. 2 to 4 were encroachers who took illegal action and used their physical strength to intimidate and harm a senior citizen, aged 82 years. The applicant emphasizes that, at such an advanced age, they are not capable of assaulting anyone, and it is implausible that they would have initiated a physical confrontation. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the complainant has failed to provide any documentary evidence to support his claim of a fractured right shoulder. On the other hand, the accused has submitted a medical report dated 06.12.2010, which states that the accused, Dhanajit, suffered serious injuries, including a fracture in the neck. Furthermore, the police inquiry revealed that Dhanajit's injuries were so severe that they could have been fatal. It is also worth noting that the complainant's application to the Police Superintendent, dated 15.06.2012, was filed over a year and a half after the incident. Additionally, the order of the Chhattisgarh Revenue Board, dated 16.11.2010, indicates that the revenue Court found the dispute between the parties to be related to ownership, and directed them to resolve the issue peacefully and through mutual agreement. Therefore, it 6 is clear that the revenue Court's order does not favor the complainant. The complainant's claim of a fractured shoulder remains unsubstantiated, while the accused has provided medical evidence of their own injuries. The delay in filing the application and the revenue Court's order further weaken the complainant's case. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the trial Court, I am of the view that the trial Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Sd/- Akhil