1 - Smt. Sharada Thakur W/o Harihar Thakur Aged About 50 Years Presently R/o v. Harihar Thakur S/o Nageshwar Thakur Aged A
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:5530 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 38 of 2024 1 - Smt. Sharada Thakur W/o Harihar Thakur Aged About 50 Years Presently R/o Ward No. 50, Borsi Bhatha Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.), 491001 2 - Smt. Mahalaxmi Diwakar W/o Mukul Diwakar Aged About 29 Years Presently R/o House No. 304, Near Shitla Mandir Borsi Bhatha Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.), 4914001 3 - Brijesh Chandra Pathak S/o Jaydev Pathak Aged About 54 Years Presently R/o Vip Nagar Police Station Newai, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.). ... Petitioners versus Harihar Thakur S/o Nageshwar Thakur Aged About 51 Years Presently R/o Lig 197, Borasi Extension, Police Station Pulgaon, Tehsil and District Durg (C.G.). ... Respondent For Petitioners
Legal Reasoning
of the records, prima facie it reveals that case is made out against the petitioners and on perusal of the records, I have not found any illegality, any perversity or any jurisdictional error in the order of the revisional Court. 7. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that there is no illegality and infirmity in the order passed by the revisional Court as well as the trial Court and there is no any ground to set aside the order passed by the Courts below. 8.
Arguments
: Mr. Ashwin Panickar, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Siddharth Rathod, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 30/01/2025 1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioners under Section 482 of the CrPC, 1973 for seeking quashment of Complaint Case 2 No.RCC/2915/2017 filed by the respondent in the Court of learned JMFC, Durg for offence under Sections 120, 294, 323, 324, 452 & 506(B) of IPC. Criminal Revision No.126/2017 initiated by the Petitioners in the Sessions Court, Durg was dismissed on 01.12.2023, hence, this Petition on the grounds which involve the following facts:- 2. The case of prosecution in brief is that Petitioner No.1 is wife, Petitioner No.2 is daughter of the Respondent whose name before her marriage was Mahalaxmi Thakur and now after marriage her name is Mahalaxmi Diwaker and Petitioner No. 3 is brother of the Petitioner No.1. Owing to marital disputes, Petitioner No.1 had initiated maintenance from the Respondent. On 02.07.2015, the Respondent filed a complaint case before the Court of JMFC, Durg claiming that on 28.06.2015, Petitioners alongwith Aditya Thakur, who is son of Petitioner No.1 and Respondent and Girish Chandra Pathak who is brother of Petitioner No.1 broke the lock of the gate and the main door of the Respondent's house, entered inside forcefully and confined him there and took away Rs.5000/-, mobile phone with its receipt and certificate, threw away the clothes and belongings of the Respondent and hurled abuses at him and beat him up with hammer and stick and threw him out of the house with threats of killing him if he entered the house again. On this basis offences under Sections 294, 323, 324, 341, 379, 380, 452, 506B, 120, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code be registered against the Petitioners and Aditya Thakur & Girish Chandra Pathak. The said complaint was dismissed by the JMFC, Durg on 31.08.2015 which was 3 thereafter challenged in Criminal Revision No.163/2015 by the Respondent before the Sessions Judge, Durg on 24.09.2015. The learned Sessions Judge, Durg by order dated 03.12.2015 cancelled the order of the JMFC, Durg and directed the JMFC, Durg to order on registration of complaint case afresh after preliminary evidence. On 25.04.2017, the JMFC, Durg registered complaint case of the Respondent for offences under Sections 120, 294, 323, 324, 506-B and 452 of the IPC against the Petitioners alongwith Aditya Thakur and Girish Chandra Pathak in RCC/2915/2017. By CRR No.126/2017, the Petitioners No.1 and 2 challenged the registration of complaint case in RCC/2915/2017 before the Sessions Judge, Durg which was dismissed by order dated 01.12.2023. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Respondent has filed the complaint case with the malicious motive of evading payment of maintenance to the Petitioner No.1 and in the meantime during the subsistence of marriage with the Petitioner No.1, Respondent has solemnized second marriage. The facts narrated by the Respondent of the incident is highly improbable and the same is reinforced by the lack of any neighbors testifying the accusations of the Respondent. He further contended that the conduct of the Petitioners does not contain the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence obscenity under Section 294 of the IPC as the incident as alleged by the Respondent involving his wife, children and brothers in law had happened in the house of the Respondent and is thus not a public place. He further 4 contended that the Police in its inquiry report dated 11/08/2015 had found no basis for the allegations made by the Respondent based on which the Complaint was dismissed for the first time by the JMFC, Durg in 2015. It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to call for records of the Courts below and allow this petition and set aside the order dated 01.12.2023 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Criminal Revision No.126/2017 and thereby quashing the criminal proceedings initiated by the Respondent for offences under Sections 294, 323, 324, 452, 506B read with Section 120 of the IPC, in the interest of justice. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supports impugned order and submits that impugned order is well merited and has been passed after considering the entire material available on record therefore, it is not a case to set aside of the impugned order, hence, the same may be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties, the impugned orders passed by the Courts below and other material available on record with utmost circumspection. 6. Considering the facts of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, I have found that the respondent has filed complaint case against the petitioners under Sections 294, 323, 324, 452, 506-B read with Section 120 of the IPC. 5 After preliminary examination for witnesses, trial Courts have passed the order and taken cognizance against the petitioners on 25.04.2017 and specifically mentioned that witnesses Prem Shankar Pandey and Dr. Akhilesh Yadav have supported the version of the Complainant - Harihar Thakur and after scrutinize the evidences registered the case against the petitioners. Being aggrieved by this order, petitioners have filed revision before the revisional Court, which has been dismissed on 01.12.2023 and affirmed the order passd by the trial Court. On perusal
Decision
Accordingly, the instant CrMP is hereby dismissed and disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant