1 2025:CGHC:18964 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 51 of 2018 1 - Man Singh S/o Shri Santlal Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Piparchedi Gagara, Thana Arjuni, Tah. And Distt. Dhamtari C.G. ... Appellant versus 1 - (Deleted) Sushil Chandra (Died) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 25-04-2025. 2 - Neel Kumar S/o Shri Suchilchandra Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Dabpali, Post Sukhridabari, Thana - Pithora, Distt. Mahasamund C.G., 3 - Laxman S/o Shri Nanku Ram Patel Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Dabpali, Post Sukhridabari, Thana - Pithora, Distt. Mahasamund C.G., 4 - Keshav S/o Shri Than Singh Chandrakar Aged About 41 Years R/o Village And Post Suspali Thana Pithora, Distt. Mahasamund C.G., 5 - Rajendra S/o Shri Than Singh Chandrakar Aged About 43 Years R/o Village And Post Suspali Thana Pithora, Distt. Mahasamund C.G., ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. R. S. Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Judgment on Board 25/04/2025 1. The appellant has filed an appeal under Section 378 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short “CrPC”) challenging an order dated 02.08.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Dhamtari in Criminal Revision No.07/2013. It appears that a complaint under Section 200 of CrPC was filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Dhamtari by the appellant against the respondents accused for commission of an offence under Section 120-B, 416, 420, 424/34 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”). It appears that the learned CJM framed charges against the 2 respondents accused under Section 417, 420, 424, 120 B of IPC vide its order dated 07.01.2013. The respondents accused challenged that order by filing a revision under Section 397 of the CrPC before the Revisional Court. Learned Revisional Court vide impugned order allowed the revision of the respondents accused and they were discharged from the aforesaid offences. 2. Mr. Rajendra Patel, learned counsel for the respondents accused submits that the appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable as the impugned order was passed by the Revisional Court exercising power under Section 397 of CrPC discharging the accused. Therefore, the acquittal appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant was not in a position to dispute the preposition, however he submits that in the operative portion of the impugned order, the learned Revisional Court has observed that the respondents have been acquitted, therefore, this appeal was filed under misconception. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including impugned order. 5. Be that as it may, the perusal of the impugned order indicates that a revision was filed against framing of charge and the learned Revisional Court has given a categorical finding that the order of framing charge for the aforesaid offences is set aside. It appears that inadvertently, instead of writing word ‘discharged’ word ‘acquitted’ was misused, however the import of the order remains the same that the respondents are discharged. 6. In view of above, as the appeal is not maintainable, it is hereby dismissed. 7. No order as to cost. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.04.29 10:54:35 +0530