Raigarh, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Police Station- Adim Jati
Case Details
1 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 2025:CGHC:44389 NAFR CRA No. 2012 of 2023 Surat Sidar S/o Munudau Sidar Aged About 60 Years R/o Village- Dhuranpali, P.S. Pusaur, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Police Station- Adim Jati Kalyan, Thana- Raigarh,, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Thana Incharge Police Station- Pusaur, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - Vijay Sharma S/o Bhururathe Sharma Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Badehardi, P.S. Pusaur,, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Mohan Yadav S/o Chamra Yadav Aged About 56 Years R/o Village- Badehardi, P.S. Pusaur,, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5 - Chitrasen @ Jeetu Yadav S/o Mohan Yadav Aged About 38 Years R/o Village- Badehardi, P.S. Pusaur,, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Deputy Government Advocate as well as Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 01.09.2025 Judgment on Board 1. Today, this matter is listed on admission. However, the matter is heard finally with the consent of both the parties. 2. As per the ofÏce report regarding service of notice, respondents/accused Nos. 3 and 4 have already been served, however, none has appeared on their behalf to contest the matter. It further transpires that respondent/accused No. 5 has died during the pendency of this appeal. 3. The appellant has preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 14- A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, seeking to set aside the order dated 21.09.2023 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Atrocities) Act, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1426/2023, whereby the learned Special Judge rejected the appellant/complainant’s application filed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, this appeal. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/complainant filed a written complaint on 13.07.2022 before the police station Pusaur for registration of FIR. In his complaint, he stated that he is a member of gond community which is scheduled as a scheduled tribe. He has been serving as village Kotwar/Jhakar in village Dhuranpali. As a service benefit, he has been allotted kotwari service land in neighboring village Badehardi in the year 1975-76 located at P.H.N. 12, having khasra No. 13/5 of total 0.50 acre area. The 3 appellant/complainant and his family has been carrying out cultivation on this land since then. 5. In the above complaint, he further stated that he had cultivated paddy on the land. On 12.10.2022, he was harvesting the harvested crop with the help of some labourer. On this date, the respondents/accused Vijay Sharma, Mohan Yadav, Chitrasen alias Jeetu Yadav of village Badehardi forcefully entered the field and mouthed filthy abuses. They stopped the appellant/complainant in reaping the harvested crop. The harvest was being loaded in the tractor. The said respondents/accused persons threw the crop and looted the tractor key and they also looted the harvested crop. On 05.11.2022, the Tahsildar Pusaur reached the village and directed not to interfere with the service land of the appellant/complainant and with respect to crime involved, he advised to approach the concerned police station. The proceeding of this date was also reduced into writing by execution of panchnama. 6. The appellant/complainant further stated in the complaint that on the next day i.e., 06.11.2022, when the appellant/complainant and his family who were harvesting the crop, the respondents/accused Mohan Yadav and Jeetu Yadav carrying axe, rod and club again entered forcefully the field. They threatened the appellant/complainant and his family members which included women members also. The appellant/complainant informed the police. The police reached there and resolved the dispute. 7. The appellant/complainant also made complaint to the collector Raigarh on 05.09.2022. He also made complaint to S.P. Raigarh 4 under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. and to D.S.P. (AJAK) on 18.11.2022. When the FIR was not registered, the appellant/complainant filed an application u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the Special Judge under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In the application the appellant/complainant stated the above facts in detail and prayed for registration of FIR under the appropriate provision of Indian Penal Code and under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. On 17.08.2023, the application was heard and it was posted for argument. Finally on 21.09.2023, by the impugned order the said application u/s 156(3) was rejected at the threshold. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that despite the appellant lodging a complaint regarding the incident at Police Station Pusaur on 20.11.2022, no action was taken. A written complaint was also submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh, but no action was taken by them either. On the basis of these acts, an application has been submitted seeking the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) for offences under the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(f) and 3(1)(g) and Section 4 of of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In support of the application, a copy of the judgment dated 12.11.2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1410/2011 and Criminal Appeal No. 1267/2007 in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others has been submitted. 9. Learned State counsel submits that the order passed by the learned trial Court is well reasoned order which warrants no interference. 5 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the learned trial Court. 11. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the appellant/complainant has not alleged any specific act of the respondents/accused being committed on the ground of caste. The allegations primarily relate to a land dispute, which is civil in nature. In such circumstances, there is no justification for issuing a direction to register an FIR under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Reliance in this regard may be placed on the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Usha Chakraborty & Others vs. State of West Bengal & Others (SLP (Criminal) No. 5866/2022, order dated 30.01.2023), wherein it has been held that criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to be used as a tool for harassment in matters predominantly civil in nature. 12. Considering the overall facts, circumstances, and the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 13. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. /- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal