1 2025:CGHC:31985 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 130 of 2024 1 - Sheikh Surab Ali Mandal S/o Sheikh Shahad Ali Mandal Aged About 42 Years At- Dharm Nagar, Opposite Axis Bank, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Sheikh Sujat Mandal S/o Sheikh Sahad Ali Mandal Aged About 40 Years At- Beside Golu Atta Chakki, Sanjay Nagar, P/s Tikrapara, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Mustaak Ali S/o Lt. Gulzar Ali Aged About 39 Years At- Beside Golu Atta Chakki, Sanjay Nagar, P/s Tikrapara, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Vinay Nagdev, Advocate appears through VC Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board 10/07/2025 1. This Acquittal Appeal has been filed against the order dated 17.12.2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.) in Complaint PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.07.11 13:27:36 +0530 2 Case No.931/2011, whereby, on the date of hearing neither the complainant nor his lawyer was present and ultimately, the complaint was closed. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submits the order sheet dated 3.12.2011 of the concerned Court records that though the criminal complaint has been registered for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 323, 294 of the IPC, but only Sections 452 & 294 of the IPC are cognizable and not compoundable in nature. He submits that when a case has been registered under the cognizable offence, the Magistrate ought not to have dismissed the case. He would further submit that the provisions contained under under Section 249 in Chapter XIX of the CrPC, 1973, which attracts for trial of Warrant-Cases by Magistrates, allows the Magistrate to dismiss a complaint and discharge the accused. He further submits that the Magistrate can exercise only the powers conferred under Section 249 of the CrPC. He would further submit that no specific order has been passed regarding acquittal of the respondent/accused. Lastly, learned counsel submits that when an order is passed by invoking powers under Section 249 of the CrPC, the same is a discharge order, against which, a remedy of Revision is available to the appellant since the said order substantially affects the rights of the parties. Considering this backdrop, this Appeal may be disposed of reserving the said liberty. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 3 4. Section 249 of the CrPC stipulates that in the trial of warrant cases under Chapter XIX, when the complainant is absent, at any time before the charge is framed, the Magistrate may discharge the accused. For the sake of brevity, the said provision reads as under:- “249. Absence of complainant.- When the proceedings have been instituted upon complaint, and on any day fixed for the hearing of the case, the complainant is absent, and the offence may be lawfully compounded or is not a cognizable offence, the Magistrate may, in his discretion, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, at any time before the charge has been framed, discharge the accused.” 5. On perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is explicit that if any order has been passed in the terms of Section 249 of the CrPC, the nature of such order substantially affects the rights of the parties. Owing to the absence of the complainant, the Magistrate has closed the complaint, which is a final order and the correct remedy available to the appellant was to file a Revision petition challenging such order before the Sessions Court. 6. In view of the aforesaid, this Appeal stands disposed of reserving the liberty as prayed for. 7. Registry shall return the certified copy of the judgment and relevant documents to counsel for the appellant after retaining the photocopy of the same. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Priyanka Judge