Page No.1 2025:CGHC:45120 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 967 of 2024 1. Dr. Arun Raj T. S/o Shri Thanga Swami Aged About 46 Years R/o Block-D-01, House No. 201, V.I.P. Karishma Apartment Shriram Nagar, Thana Civil Line, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) At Present Pt. Deendayal Upadhyaya Institute Of Archaeology, Plot No. 2, Knowledge Park-Ii, Greater Noida, Utter Pradesh 201310 ... Petitioner versus 1. Sanjay Prasad Gupta S/o Raghuvar Sao Aged About 42 Years R/o House No. 302, Block K, Lotus Arcade Junvani Road, Bhilai District Durg (C.G.) At Present Resident Of Technical Officer, Office Of Research Laboratory For Conservation Of Culturer Property E-3 Aliganj Lucknow (U.P.) ___________________________________________________________ For Applicant : Mr. Alok Bakshi, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Gautam Khetrapal, Advocate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 3.9.2025 1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking quashment of the order dated 12.12.2023, Annexure P-1, passed in Criminal Revision No.753/2019 by which by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur dismissed the revision and affirmed the order of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Raipur dated 9.8.2018 dismissing complaint of petitioner herein for registration of FIR against petitioner for the offence under Sections 294 and 323 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that absolutely false case has been framed by respondent against the petitioner only to SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Page No.2 save himself from the report lodged by petitioner against respondent in connection with incident dated 16.8.2013 in concerned police station for alleged commission of offence under Sections 294 & 323 of IPC. It is also contention of learned counsel for petitioner that complaint case is filed only to harass the petitioner after closure report is filed by police on report of respondent. As the allegations in the complaint are vexatious and with malafide intention, therefore, the Magistrate erred in issuing notice and learned revisional Court erred in dismissing revision challenging the order of issuing process against the petitioner herein. In support of his submission he places reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Harayana vs. Bhajanlal, reported in 1992 SCC (Crl.) 426. 3. Learned counsel for respondent opposing submission of learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on the date of incident i.e. 16.8.2013, petitioner abused, assaulted and threatened respondent. In the said accident, respondent suffered injuries for which he took treatment from the concerned doctor and thereafter lodged report on very next day i.e. on 17.8.2013, in concerned police station. Copy of medical prescription as also written report submitted by respondent are placed on record along with reply. He also contended that report was registered as FIR No.92/13 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 294, 506 & 323 of IPC, but thereafter when police did not take any step for filing charge sheet or final report before the Court of competent jurisdiction, respondent submitted an application under Section 200 CrPC. Respondent also filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to know about status of FIR registered on his Page No.3 complaint on which it is informed that there is no record of submission of closure report before any court of law. Learned Magistrate considering the allegations as levelled in the complaint and preliminary statement of complainant recorded under Section 200 CrPC has issued process which is in accordance with provisions of law. He also submits that at the stage of issuance of process the court is required to consider whether there is prima facie case based on allegations levelled in the complaint and statement of complainant and not to see whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant his conviction. In support of his contention he places reliance on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Gujarat vs. Afroz Mohammd Hasanfatta, reported in (2019) 20 SCC 539. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. 5. As per complaint filed by respondent under Section 200 CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Raipur, petitioner and respondent at relevant point of time were posted on their respective posts in Raipur circle of Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). On 16.8.2013, during discharge of duty, upon refusal to favour one of blue eyed contractor of petitioner, petitioner abused, assaulted respondent in his office in presence of two employees of the department and threatened for life as well to oust him from the job. Respondent lodged written report in Police Station New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur based upon which FIR under Crime No.92/2013 was registered against petitioner herein for alleged commission of offence under Section 294, 323, & 506 of IPC. However, even after lapse of sufficient time police authorities have not taken appropriate Page No.4 action against petitioner herein, therefore, necessity has arisen to file complaint against the petitioner for punishing the petitioner for his acts which constitute the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506, 323 of IPC. Along with complaint, respondent has filed documents in support of pleadings made therein. 6. Statement of respondent was recorded by the learned Magistrate in which he reiterated the version as put forth in the complaint. 7. Learned Magistrate considering the statement of complainant and his witnesses, documents filed along with complaint, arrived at conclusion that prima facie case against the petitioner herein is made out and consequently ordered for registration of criminal complaint and issued process to the petitioner herein. 8. The order passed by the Revisional Court shows that two reports arising out of the same incident, one by petitioner and another by respondent herein came to be registered. Police filed closure report in respect of complaint of respondent claiming lack of evidence against petitioner. However, based on report of petitioner, respondent was charge sheeted before the competent Court. Learned revisional Court concurred with the findings of learned Magistrate by recording that learned Magistrate after considering preliminary evidence found that a prima facie under Sections 294, 323 & 506 of IPC is found to have been made out against petitioner and accordingly, ordered for registration of complaint under the heading ‘criminal complaint’. accused/petitioner herein will get ample opportunity to prove his innocence by rebutting the evidence of respondent as well as by producing proper defence evidence before the learned Magistrate. 9. It is well settled that at the time of taking a decision whether a Page No.5 process should issue against the accused or not what the Magistrate has to see is whether there is prima facie material in support of the allegations of the complainant so as to justify the issue of process and commencement of proceedings against the accused, and not whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant his conviction. 10.In the instant case, learned Magistrate taking into consideration the documents filed along with complaint including Memo dated 22.11.2016 of the Public Information Officer-cum- Special Judge Atrocities/NDPS, Raipur informing that criminal case arising of Crime No.92/2013 registered against petitioner herein on the basis of written complaint of respondent herein in respect of incident dated 16.8.2013, is neither decided nor pending before the Court of competent jurisdiction, has issued process against the petitioner holding that there is material on record to make out a prima facie case against him. 11.Needless to mention here that as per internal page of Annexure R- 3, respondent has been supplied information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 by the SHO, Police Station Rajendra Nagar, Raipur to the effect that entire case diary of Crime No.92/2013 has been submitted before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Raipur for acceptance of closure. Thus, in light of memo dated 22.11.2016 of the Public Information Officer-cum- Special Judge Atrocities/NDPS, Raipur, it is clear that complainant/ respondent herein has lodged complaint in Police Station New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur but the police have not taken any action on the complaint submitted by respondent in respect of incident dated 16.8.2013. Page No.6 12.For the foregoing, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders passed by both the Courts warranting interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC. There is no merit in this petition, which is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-