1 2025:CGHC:2034 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 894 of 2018 Ramnarayan S/o Late Ramprasad Aged About 36 Years Caste Chamar, R/o Village Tengani, Police Station Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur Distt. Korea Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. Smt. Sanju Devi W/o Shri Ramnarayan D/o Shri Hariprasad, Caste Chamar, R/o Village Temri, Police Station Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur Distt. Korea Chhattisgarh 2. Smt. Kalendri Bai W/o Shri Hariprasad Caste Chamar, R/o Village Temri, Police Station Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur Distt. Korea Chhattisgarh 3. Hariprasad S/o Shri Mohar Sai Aged About 60 Years Caste Chamar, R/o Village Temri, Police Station Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur Distt. Korea Chhattisgarh 4. Smt. Babli W/o Shri Ramnath Aged About 39 Years D/o Shri Hariprasad Caste Chamar, R/o Village Temri, Police Station Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur Distt. Korea Chhattisgarh 5. Smt. Manju W/o Late Bhuwaneshwar Aged About 50 Years Caste Chamar, R/o Village Temri, Police Station Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur Distt. Korea Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Respondents : None. 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners. None appeared on behalf of the respondents to press this petition when the case is called out of hearing. 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 22.03.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.) Korea, in Criminal Revision Case No. 31/2017, whereby the learned revisional Court had rejected the the criminal revision filed by the petitioner. 3. Brief facts of the case is that according to the prosecution's story, the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code with the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baikunthpur, Distt. Korea (C.G.), alleging the respondent No. 1 and the complainant are husband and wife. Respondent No. 1, who was three to four months pregnant, left the complainant's house to live with her mother, respondent No. 3, in Temri village. There, the respondents allegedly conspired to forcibly abort respondent No. 1's unborn child through massage, resulting in a miscarriage. Upon learning of the incident, the complainant and their family members met respondent No. 1 at Baikunthpur Hospital and filed a complaint with the Superintendent of Police, but no action was taken. Consequently, the complainant submitted a petition to the subordinate court, which was dismissed through an impugned 3 order. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the petitioner's complaint on June 8, 2017, stating that based on the facts, evidence, and materials presented, there was no case to be made under Sections 120B, 312, 315, 318/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondents. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner moved the Court of Sessions through Criminal Revision No. 31/2017. However, the learned Court of Sessions also rejected the revision and afÏrmed the trial court's order on March 22, 2018. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the Courts have committed gross illegality in rejecting the complaint case as well criminal revision filed by the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner by way of evidence has proved all the ingredients of Sections 312, 315, 318/34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the respondents, despite of that cognizance has not been taken by the concerned Magistrate. He also submits that on bare perusal of the evidence, the offence under aforementioned Sections has been proved. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the prayers and pleadings made in the petition along with the annexures annexed in the petition. 7. From the perusal of the order passed by the trial Court, it transpires that according to the complainant and witnesses, accused No. 1 got the complainant's unborn child aborted by getting her stomach massaged. Witness Manmati stated that accused No. 1 informed her at Baikunthpur District Hospital that she had gotten the abortion 4 done since she didn't want to live with the complainant. However, in the investigation report, accused No. 1 denied getting the abortion done in her statement. No substantial evidence, such as a witness who saw accused No. 1 getting the massage or medical evidence showing the abortion was caused by the massage, has been presented to support the complainant's and witnesses' statements. The complainant failed to examine a medical witness to support his case. The investigation report, which merely states that accused No. 1 had no external or internal injuries, is insufÏcient to conclusively prove that accused No. 1's miscarriage was caused by abdominal massage. Therefore, the impugned order of the revisional Court is just and proper. 8. 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: 2025.01.14 18:13:20 +0530