Krishna Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Chinta Ram Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Village v. 1 - Quadar Hussain S/o Saifuddin Aged About 36 Years R/o Shivaji Ward, Hinganghat
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:6304 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2601 of 2018 Krishna Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Chinta Ram Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Chandna, Post Bhendri, Via Rajim, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Quadar Hussain S/o Saifuddin Aged About 36 Years R/o Shivaji Ward, Hinganghat Verdha, Nagpur, Maharashtra, Presently R/o Near Tahsil Office, Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sanjay Ostawal S/o Tejmal Ostawal Aged About 53 Years R/o Hinganghat Verdha Nagpur Maharashtra. 3 - Anubhav Chandrakar S/o Ishwar Chandrakar R/o Bajrang Chowk, Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 4 - Aditya Chandrakar S/o Ishwar Chandrakar R/o Bajrang Chowk, Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 5 - Bhanushali Rathi S/o Ashanand Rathi R/o Bajrang Chowk Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, Presently R/o Baniyapara Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 6 - Samrin Bai W/o Ram Nath Dhruv Aged About 58 Years R/o Bajrang Chowk Kurud, Presently R/o Near House Of Premart Guruji, Ward No.3 Pachripar Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner For Respondents : : Mr. Abhishek Chandravanshi, Advocate. Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 04.02.2025 Order on Board 1.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Abhishek Chandravanshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the private respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN Date: 2025.02.07 17:50:49 +0530 2 CrPC for being aggrieved by the order dated 09.10.2018 passed in Criminal Revision No. 122/13 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Link Court, Kurud, District – Dhamtari (C.G.), arising out of the order dated 12.02.2013 passed in unregistered criminal case by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurud, District – Dhamtari (C.G.), whereby the application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC filed by the complainant was rejected by the trial Court, which has been affirmed by the learned revisional Court. 3. The prosecution story, in short, is that the present petitioner/complainant had filed one application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, for registration of the crime against the accused persons. The present petitioner/complainant had filed various applications and complaints before the Tahsildar, SDO, the Economic Offences Wing Chhattisgarh, the concerned Police Station, Kurud, the Superintendent of Police, the Inspector General of Police and the Director General of Police, he has also made a complaint before the Collector and informed that the respondents/accused had developed the illegal colony, in the name and styled as F.B. Town Colony' near village Charra in the National Highway, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, it is also alleged and complaint by the present petitioner/complainant, that without there being any sanction or approval by the concerned authorities regarding the development of the residential colony, the agricultural land was converted into the commercial and residential plots, the same is impermissible in the eyes of law. 4. The petitioner/complainant also described a detail that at village 3 Charra, a land situated adjacent to the N.H. No. 43, where four lane new road is proposed by the government, the same land is exchanged with the remotely located land of the accused persons and their family members, the same exchange of the land is beyond the provisions and permissibility of the law, by this way the respondent/accused and their family members, who are highly influential and moneyed persons have played fraud, cheating and also a great and huge loss to the public exchequer, it is also alleged by this way the respondents have committed a crime under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, it is also under the provisions of Vinirdisht Bhrast Achran Adhiniyam, and other penal provisions of the penal code also, it is provided in the Prevention of Corruption Act that any person who is having and holding the public offices and authorities, will not indulged to give any undue advantage to any person, whereas in the present case the family members of the present respondents, who were the highly influential and public officers, have played a mischief and fraud, they have not only permitted and provided the facilities of the proposed accused person, to get exchange the less valued land with the highly valued land of the government, they have also influenced the officer, who have not taken the appropriate action against the erring persons, in this way by playing a corrupt practices, they have permitted to develop illegal colony, beyond the permissibility of the law. It is also alleged that the act of the 4 respondent is also violative to the different provisions of Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat (Colonizer Ka Ragistrikaran Nirbandhan Tatha Shartn) Niyam 1999 and Act also. 5. The present petitioner/complainant not only submitted the complaint to different authorities for taking appropriate action and for prevention of the offences continuously being committed by the respondents and their family members, but he has also filed in the present complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the competent Court of law, where without there being any hearing in case of the petitioner and without there being adjudication of the matter as per the settled provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, in limining the matters has been dismissed. 6. Against the said order the petitioner has preferred a revision petition before the Sessions Court. Dhamtari. In the revision petition a detail and categorical submissions were made by the present petitioner and alleged that the dismissal of the complaint case under Section 156(3) of CrPC is impermissible in the eyes of law and liable to be set-aside and quashed. The learned revisional Court without appreciating the case has passed simply an order of dismissal, hence the order is bad in eye of law and liable to be set-aside and quashed. 7. In the application under Section 156(3) of CrPC, the petitioner has given each and every details and description about the offences, 5 the manner of the offence and acquisition against them, the involvement of the public officers and the present accused persons in commission of alleged crime, he has also described each and every detail of the land and the offence and manner in which it is committed by the person was already described by the complainant, a bare reading of the complaint under Section 156(3) of CrPC itself reveals the fact that the substantial allegations were made by the petitioner duly coupled with the evidences and the nature of documentary, circumstantial and ocular also, this pieces of evidences have not been considered by the learned trial Court at all and in the revision petition also the learned Sessions Court has not even appreciated these all facts and circumstances of the case, hence the dismissal of the order is bad and illegal. 8. When the petitioner made a complaint to all the concerned authorities about the illegalities and offence committed by the respondents, then he got information under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 that no permission is ever taken by the respondents, to develop the colony as per the required provisions of law. There is clear violation of the provisions of Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 particularly Section 61(d), if any person develops illegal colony, then he be responsible for all the consequences, but unfortunately in the present case the trial Court as well as the revisional Court have not appreciated and seen the present facts. Hence, this petition. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the 6 learned trial Court as well a the revisional Court ought to have seen and appreciated that there is clear cut offence made out, against the present respondents, under the provisions of Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat (Colonizer Ka Ragistrikaran Nirbandhan Tatha Sharten) Niyam 1999 and Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 particularly Section 61 (d), hence the dismissal order is bad, illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court as well a the revisional Court ought to have seen and appreciating the fact that without appreciating the fact, particularly when the complaint under Section 156(3) of CrPC is filed before the learned trial Court, the complete procedure as have been provided and prescribed, by the Code of Criminal Procedure should have been followed by the learned trial Court and the revisional Court also, hence the dismissal is bad in eyes of law and liable to be set-aside and quashed. It is further submitted that Section 156(3) of the CrPC provides for investigation as are empowered the Magistrate under Section 190 of the CrPC, hence the same is absolutely bad and without there being any further enquiry or investigation in the matter. It is further submitted that under the provisions of Section 190 of the CrPC the Magistrate is empowered either to take cognizance of the matter or to send the matter for appropriate enquiry before the concerned Police Station, but in the present case both the 7 provisions of Section 190 has not been followed by the learned trial Court as well a the revisional Court, hence, the same is untenable in the eyes of law, set-aside and quashed. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court as well a the revisional Court have not given any finding on the facts, grounds and evidences brought on record by the present petitioner, hence, the dismissal order is bad in eyes of law. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and supports the impugned judgment and order dated 09.10.2018 passed in Criminal Revision No. 122/13 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Link Court, Kurud, District – Dhamtari (C.G.), arising out of the order dated 12.02.2013 passed in unregistered criminal case by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurud, District – Dhamtari (C.G.), whereby the application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC filed by the complainant was rejected by the trial Court, which has been affirmed by the learned revisional Court, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 12. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the judgments/orders of the 8 trial Court as well as the revisional Court, 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 for quashment of the impugned order, thus, it is clear that after considering all the materials and after applying mind the learned revisional Court has passed the impugned order dated 09.10.2018 in Criminal Revision No. 122/13, arising out of the order dated 12.02.2013 passed in unregistered criminal case by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurud, District – Dhamtari (C.G.), whereby the application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC filed by the complainant was rejected by the trial Court, which has been affirmed by the learned revisional Court and the revision preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed, and there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order. 13. Accordingly, the instant petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits, liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 14. 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 Rahul