1 - Vishnu Kumar Gupta S/o Bheemsen Gupta, Aged About 54 Years R/o Main v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Kota, District
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:6843 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3332 of 2024 1 - Vishnu Kumar Gupta S/o Bheemsen Gupta, Aged About 54 Years R/o Main Road, Infront Of State Bank, Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgrh. 2 - Anwar Khan S/o Abid Ali, Aged About 35 Years R/o Masjid Para Kota, District Bilaspur. 3 - Dishan Khan S/o Khanmunna R/o Masjid Para Kota District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
Legal Reasoning
4 - Jagarnath Namdev Alias Monti S/o Ravi Namdeo R/o Firangi Para, Main Road Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Harish Namdev S/o Ravi Namdeo R/o Firangi Para, Main Road Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Shubham Namdev S/o Ravi Namdev R/o Firangi Para, Main Road Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Rajida Begam W/o Habid Ali, R/o Masjid Para, Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Digitally signed by NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Date: 2025.03.03 10:54:16 +0530 2 8 - Dimpal Singh S/o Mahender Singh Chandi Chowk Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Shri N.K. Chatterjee, Advocate. For the State : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Panel Lawyer. For Res. No. 2 to 8 : Shri Vivek Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 06/02/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, heard finally. 2. Petitioner has preferred this CRMP under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suaksha Sanhita, 2023 to set-aside the impugned order dated 24/08/2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Kota, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 2086/2022, whereby the the application filed by the petitioner has been rejected. 3. The brief facts of the case is that complaint lodged by the petitioner at Police Station Kota, the Crime No.735/2022 only on the basis of report lodged, the case has been lodged against the Anwar Ali Son of Abid Ali and the final report was filed by the Police at JMFC Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence under Section 294 and 506 of IPC. The report was lodged by the complainant dated 22-07-2022, in which the complainant has disclosed that over the ancestral property of complainant and over the possession of the same, the respondents have forcefully had trying to break the lock of house and shop and had also uttered the filthy languages and threatened. After having been 3 registered the offence under Section 294 and 506 of IPC in Crime No.735/2022 of P.S. Kota. 4. The statement of the complainant was recorded on 04-09-2022 and the statement of Pinku Gupta, Pravesh Shrivastava, Golu @ Vinod Yadav were also recorded. The complainant and other witnesses have categorically disclosed that Anwar Ali and other accused persons have vacated the house and shop of petitioners and the said persons have committed the said act and occupy the shop. On the basis of the abatement made by Anwar had asked the other accused to drag the lock of the house of petitioner and at that time, the wife of complainant namely Pinki Gupta, Ramesh Gupta, Chunnu Gupta, Amardeep Gupta, Mannu yadav, Shishir Soni, Pravesh Shrivasava, Vishnu Prajapat and Golu Yadav and other persons have seen the incident and they were the witnesses of the spot. The charge sheet has been filed by the police against only Anwar Ali and despite the fact that prima-facie case was made out against all the accused persons. 5. The petitioner filed an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kota, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) by making other co-accused persons to make an accused, who had not been incorporated in the charge sheet by the police, but the learned JMFC Kota has not cared the application filed by the petitioner/complainant. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 24/08/2024 is erroneous and illegal, hence deserved to be set-aside. He further submits that learned trial Court has observed that the FIR, before whom the FIR lodged against all the accused person inclusive Anwar Ali and also discussed about the application filed by the 4 complainant for making other accused persons in this case and try the case along with Anwar Ali, but the said application filed by the petitioner was dismissed and posted the case for prosecution evidence against Anwar Ali only. 7. He further submits that learned trial Court has committed an illegibility in not considering the application filed by the complainant and not having the allegation lodged by the complainant against the accused, who had also been present at the time and those accused persons had uttered filthy language to the complainant. He also submits that the charge-sheet and FIR in which names of other accused persons has also been disclosed at the time of commission of offence and they are equally responsible along with Anwar Ali and therefore taking into consideration of the averments in the complaint lodged by the petitioner and despite the fact that it was duty of the trial Court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection and found that on the basis of written complaint lodged by the petitioner at Police Station Kota, the crime No.735/2022 has been registered against the Anwar Ali S/o Abid Ali and the final report under Section 173 (2) of CrPC has been forwarded to be Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kota, District Bilaspur(C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 294 and 506 of IPC. Petitioner has filed an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class for incorporate the other accused persons namely Dishan Khan, Jagannath Namdev, Harish Namdev, Shubham Namdev, Rajida Begum W/o Abid Ali and Dimpal Singh. 9. Learned counsel for the State contended that after investigation Police has found that only Anwar Ali has used filthy language/obscene acts 5 and only Anwar Ali has threatened the petitioner and case diary statement shows that witnesses have not mentioned the name of respondents No. 3 to 8 in their statements recorded under Section 161 of CrPC 1973, on that basis learned trial Court has taken cognizance against only Anwar Ali and framed charges against Anwar Ali and rejected the application filed by the petitioner for incorporate the name of other persons i.e. respondents No. 3 to 8. 10. FIR means to move the Police for cognizable offence and Police investigate the matter and forwarded final report under Section 173(2) of CrPC. The case has already been listed for prosecution evidence and if in the course of trial an offence it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the petitioner has right to file application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.
Decision
11. With these observations, the CRMP is disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Kamde