1 2025:CGHC:2821 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 535 of 2018 Mahesh Agrawal S/o Kapoorchandra Agrawal Aged About 58 Years R/o Ward No. 17, Bagbahara, Police Station Bagbahara, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh … Petitioner versus 1. Rajkumar Agrawal S/o Omprakash Agrawal Aged About 45 Years R/o R.L. Automobile, Main Road Bagbahara, Ward No. 7, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 2. Pintu Agrawal S/o Omprakash Agrawal Aged About 40 Years R/o Sourabh Hardware, Main Road Bus Stand, Bagbahara Ward No. 7, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 3. Shyama Sunder @ Shyama Agrawal D/o Balmukund Agrawal Aged About 55 Years R/o Sourabh Hardware, Main Road Bus Stand, Bagbahara Ward No. 7, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 4. Kailash Agrawal S/o Balmukund Agrawal Aged About 52 Years R/o Ward No. 8, Police Station Kesinga, District Kalahandi, Orissa 5. Sundar Jain S/o Khajanchi Das Jain Aged About 65 Years R/o Ward No. 7, New Bharat Boot House, Kesinga, District Kalahandi Orissa 2 6. Archi Agrawal W/o Abhishek Agrawal Aged About 26 Years R/o Hindustan Automobile, Ward No. 12, Durga Mandap Gali, Police Station Kesinga, District Kalahandi Orissa 7. Savita @Satyabhama Agrawal W/o Late Surajbhan Agrawal Aged About 50 Years R/o Hindustan Automobile, Ward No. 12, Durga Mandap Gali, Police Station Kesinga, District Kalahandi Orissa 8. Rajkumar Agrawal S/o Barumal Agrawal Aged About 45 Years R/o Hindustan Automobile, Ward No. 12, Durga Mandap Gali, Police Station Kesinga, District Kalahandi Orissa 9. Shrawan Agrawal S/o Kapoorchandra Agrawal Aged About 55 Years R/o Sourabh Hardware, Main Road Bus Stand, Bagbahara Ward No. 7, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 10. Sourabh Agrawal S/o Shrawan Agrawal Aged About 26 Years R/o Sourabh Hardware, Main Road Bus Stand, Bagbahara Ward No. 7, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 11. Rishi Agrawal S/o Seetaram Agrawal Aged About 50 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Bazar Para, Bagbahara, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 12. Prashant Agrawal S/o Suresh Agrawal Aged About 45 Years R/o C. G. Bore Wells, Ward No. 05, Ganesh Nagar, Bagbahara, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 13. Yashwant Jindal S/o Omprakash Jindal Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No. 8, Bagbahara, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 14. Vicky Jain S/o Gautam Chand Jain Aged About 45 Years R/o Gurudev Travels, Ward No. 02, Bagbahara, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 15. State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bagbahara, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Respondents 3 For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Paranjape, Advocate. For Respondent No. 01 to 14 : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent No. 15/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjape, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 01 to 14 and Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent No. 15/State. 2. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.) the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 19.02.2018 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) passed in Cr. Rev. Case No. 26/2017, arising out of the order dated 11.05.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund, against the respondents for offenses punishable under Sections 380 and 457 of the Indian Penal Code. The application was filed on the grounds that respondent No. 6 had lodged an FIR against the petitioner, his wife, and son on September 1, 2016, at Police Station 4 Bagbahra, alleging a dowry offense. The petitioner and his family had left their house locked, but the respondents allegedly entered the house with the intention of robbery, breaking the lock. He also submits that a list of stolen items was marked in Schedule A of the application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail on September 15, 2017. Upon returning to his house, he reported the incident to the Station Incharge at Police Station Bagbahra on September 17, 2017, including a detailed list of stolen items. 4. He contended that despite waiting for police action, the petitioner claims that the authorities were idle and took no steps to investigate. On January 27, 2017, the petitioner wrote to the police authorities in Mahasamund, requesting action on his earlier complaint. On December 30, 2016, the petitioner informed the police authorities in Mahasamund about the theft, providing a detailed description and a copy of the anticipatory bail order. The Sessions Court observed that no prima facie case of dowry was made, and the medical report was not adequate. He also submits that according to the respondents' statements to the police, they entered the petitioner's house after informing the local police authorities and breaking the lock with their permission. However, the petitioner received information through the Right to Information Act that no written application was submitted, and no police ofÏcer gave consent to break the lock. 5. He also contended that, on December 31, 2016, the petitioner filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal 5 Procedure before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund. The proceedings were initiated, and statements from the petitioner and respondents were recorded. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund, preferred a criminal revision (No. 26/2017) before the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund. On February 19, 2018, the Sessions Court rejected the revision application, observing that there was insufÏcient material to proceed against the respondents under Sections 380 and 457 of the Indian Penal Code. The court upheld the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund. 6. He further submits that the learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate that at the time of registration of a complaint only the prima facie case has to be consider and at that stage Magistrate cannot expect the material for conviction. He also submits that the learned Sessions Court has failed to appreciate that the Magistrate while deciding the application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot go beyond his jurisdiction to examine the complaint and material in details. The only aspect which the learned magistrate has to keep in mind that the appreciation of the complaint as well as the statement has to be made on prima facie manner. He also submits that it is a matter of investigation and enquiry whether the said act has been committed by proposed accused/respondents or not. The revisional Court had failed to appreciate the fact that by rejecting the application of the petitioner under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. the learned Judicial Magistrate 6 First Class, Mahasamund, has caused grave injustice to the petitioner, therefore, the said orders are liable to be set-aside. 7. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 01 to 14 as well as respondent No. 15/State supported the orders passed by the learned trial Court as well as learned revisional Court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the prayers and pleadings made in the petition along with the annexures annexed in the petition. 9. From the perusal of the records, it transpires that the order dated 11.05.2017 passed by the trial Court clearly states that the daughter-in-law, being a member of the shared household, has the legal right to enter her in-laws' house and can lawfully break the lock to enter and take her children's belongings. In this circumstance, the daughter-in-law cannot be considered a criminal for trespassing and theft. The case records also reveal that an FIR was filed by Archi Agrawal against the petitioner/Mahesh for dowry harassment at Bagbahara Police Station on the date of the incident. According to Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, every woman in a domestic relationship has the right to reside in the shared household. Therefore, it cannot be said that Archi Agrawal entered a house where she had no right to reside. She took her and her children's clothes and essentials in the presence of other respondents and informed the police, which suggests that her actions were not malicious. If her intention were dishonest, she would not have provided written information to the 7 police with signatures from witnesses. In conclusion, the trial Court's decision to dismiss the application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not pursue criminal charges under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code was justified, and there is no basis for interfering with this order. Therefore, the impugned order of the revisional Court is just and proper. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the impugned order passed by the revisional Court as well as learned trial Court, I am of the considered opinion that the order passed by the learned revisional Court as well as the learned trial Court does not call for any interference and accordingly, the present petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.01.20 15:44:35 +0530