1 2025:CGHC:19966 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1339 of 2025 Smt. Reshma Karamchandani W/o Rakesh Karamchandani Aged About 38 Years R/o Kashyap Colony, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner Versus 1 - Rakesh Karamchandani S/o Late Chandlal Karamchandani Aged About 42 Years 2 - Kamlesh Karamchandani S/o Late Chandlal Karamchandani Aged About 46 Years 3 - Smt. Kiran Karamchandani W/o Kamlesh Karamchandani Aged About 43 Years Address of Respondent No. 1 to 3 as per CRMP No. 1148/2018 i.e. R/o Shaktidham T. 34/3, Main Road, Bairagarh, Near Chungi, Naka, P.S. Bairagarh, District Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh). 4 - Deepa Nainani D/o Late Chandlal Karamchandani Aged About 45 Years Address of Respondent No. 4 who was respondent No. 5 in CRMP No. 1148/2018 i.e. R/o Through Hariom Public City Palace Road (Ad Agency Ratlam Madhya Pradesh. ... Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Soni, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jay Prakash Shukla, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order Sheet 01/05/2025 1. By this petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 215 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks revival of Cr.M.P. No. 1148/2018 by recalling the order dated 14.01.2025. 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner herein is that the respondents had filed a petition being Cr.M.P No.1148/2018 wherein the respondents had challenged the order dated 05.05.2018 passed by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Cr.R. No. 224/2017 and the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5/2017 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur and also setting aside of the order dated 20.01.2017 which was an order taking cognizance by the learned trial Court. 3. The petitioner is the wife of respondent No. 1 whose marriage was solemnized on 18.11.2013 and as per the petitioner, she was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry because of which she made a complaint case before the competent Court and the learned trial Court took cognizance of the said case for commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC. The same was challenged by the respondents by filing Cr.M.P. No. 1148/2018 in which this Court, vide order dated 14.01.2025, quashed the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No. 5/2017 which was afÏrmed by the learned 3 revisional Court vide order dated 20.01.2017 passed in Cr.R. No. 224/2017 in respect of the respondents Kamlesh Karamchandani, Smt. Kiran and Smt. Deepa Nainani, however, the petition with respect to the respondent-Rakesh Karamchandani was dismissed and the prosecution against him was allowed to continue. 4. Mr. Sunil Soni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-wife submits that the respondents have played fraud against the Court as the counsel arguing the matter on behalf of the respondents in Cr.M.P. No. 1148/2018 was not competent to argue the matter as the memo of appearance filed did not had the signature of all the respondents. He has drawn attention of this Court to page No. 49, 50 and 51 of the petition and also to the order of a co-ordinate Single Bench passed on 23.09.2022 wherein it has been observed that the memo of appearance annexed with the petitioner was filed on behalf of Rakesh Karamchandani and others, though the names of other persons were not mentioned and the same could be irregularity and not illegality. The counsel, Mr. Jay Prakash Shukla was not authorised to argue the matter on behalf of the respondents. It is utter violation of Rule 267(2) of the High Court Rules. 5. Further, false afÏdavit was filed in support of their petition as it was stated that to the best information of the petitioners (respondents herein) the concerning police station got the matter investigated and submitted a report before the concerning Court intimating that no offence is made out against the petitioners which is contrary to the actual position. In fact, the police report dated 23.12.2016 was intentionally not filed alongwith the petitioner wherein it was clearly mentioned that offence against the accused persons was made out. It has further been submitted by Mr. 4 Soni that the counsel for the respondents had filed rejoinder without supplying a copy of the same to him which has caused grave prejudice to the petitioner-wife. Furthermore, the revisional Court’s order was challenged solely on the territorial jurisdiction to the effect that Bilaspur Criminal Court had no jurisdiction, however, the revisional Court adjudicated the issue of territorial jurisdiction vide its para 7 and para 9 of the order dated 05.05.2018. It is also submitted by Mr. Soni that even before the Court below, one Ms. Bharti Singh, Advocate appeared on behalf of the petitioner-wife and the same Advocate appeared for and on behalf of the respondent-husband not only in Domestic Violence case but also in the case relating to Section 498A IPC. Hence, the order passed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 1148/2018 on 14.01.2025 needs to be recalled. Mr. Soni places reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh & Another {(2006) 1 SCC 75}. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Jay Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents submit that when the matter was heard on 14.01.2025, on that day, Mr. Soni, learned counsel was present but these objections as have been raised in this petition, were not raised. He further pointed out that a co-ordinate Single Bench of this Court, vide order dated 23.09.2022 in Cr.M.P. No. 1148/2018, has already rejected the contentions of the petitioner herein and the same was not challenged by the petitioner before any higher forum. The counsel for the petitioner is trying to be too technical and taking shelter of minor irregularities, is trying to get the order recalled which is nothing but an attempt for re- arguing the matter on merits. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and 5 documents appended thereto. 8. The main grievance of the petitioner is that a counsel who was not authorised to argue the matter on behalf of the respondents, had argued the matter in Cr.M.P. No. 1148/2018 as there was no proper signature of the all the respondents (petitioners therein). However, fact of the matter remains that when this case was heard, Mr. Soni, learned counsel who represented the respondent-wife, was also present. The matter was heard on merits and the petitioner herein cannot take shelter of technicalities that mere because of the absence of signature of the parties in the memo of appearance filed by the respondents herein, the order passed by this Court gets vitiated. There is no disagreement with regard to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Uday Shankar Triyar (supra), however, the same may not be applicable in the present facts of the case. 9. Moreover, both the learned counsel for the parties were heard on merits in Cr.M.P. No. 1148/2018 and the order was passed by this Court on 14.01.2025 and now the petitioner-wife intends to argue the matter afresh which cannot be permitted. The contention raised herein, was also raised in Cr.M.P. No. 1148/2018 which was rejected by this Court on 23.09.2022 but the petitioner-wife did not challenge the said order dated 23.09.2022 before any higher forum and after disposal of the said petition on merits on 14.01.2025, same ground has been tried to be raised. This Court does not find any merit in this petition and as such, the same is dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Preeti / Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.05.07 12:08:39 +0530