1 2025:CGHC:19135 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1423 of 2025 1 - Prabhakar Mriduli S/o Shri Gangadhar Mriduli Aged About 60 Years R/o Grande 16, Koradi Road Bokhra, Ramanth City, Mahalaxmi City Koradi (N.V.) Koradi Nagpur Maharashtra Pin - 441111 (Applicant) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Hetram Sahu S/o Dhaniram Sahu Aged About 68 Years R/o Quarter No. B-12, Ompur Colony Rajgamar Korba Tahsil And District - Korba Chhattisgarh (Complainant) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Kavita Bansal, Advocate S.B. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on board 28.04.2025. 1. Heard on Admission. 2. The present Cr.M.P. has been filed under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Surksha Sanhita, 2023 against the impugned order dated 09/04/2025 passed by learned First Addl. Sessions Judge, Korba in Cr.R. No. 46/2024 whereby the Cr.R. No. 46/2024 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/ complainant filed a complaint case under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Korba on 21.07.2023 with the allegation that on 25.03.2023 at about 9 am, when he was in the office of Area Manager, SECL, Rajgamar , Korba and waiting for the Officer, the present petitioner came there and started abusing him with filthy language and threatened him with dire consequence. By the obscene abuses he felt ashemed and went in depression. On 28.03.2023, she made a complaint to the Senior Office of SECL but no action has been taken against the accused and as a punitive measure he has been transferred from Rajgamar to Surakachhar. Again another incident was occurred on 24.05.2023, when he asked for his original overman certificate from the accused. He also made a police complaint on 20.06.2023 but an intimation under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. has been given to him and thereafter he filed a complaint case under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court vide its order dated 23.08.2024, registered the complaint case against the accused for the offence under Sections 294 and 506 part I of IPC and issue process against him. The said order dated 23.08.2024 was challenged by the petitioner before the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Korba by filing the Cr.R. No. 46/2024 which has also been dismissed on 09/04/2025 by the learned Revisional Court which is under challenge in the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on the date of alleged incident the petitioner was not there in the Office. Had any incident occurred on the alleged date and time, the complainant could have informed the authority and the department should have taken action against him or any departmental inquiry should have been initiated against him but the complainant neither made any complaint to the department nor any 3 departmental inquiry has been initiated against the accused. He would also submit that initially the complainant has made one Rajkumar Chouhan as his witness but subsequently, he produced another witness Nirmal Kosle and Teej Ram, whereas the witness Rajkumar has not supported the case. No prima facie offence disclosed from the material produced by the complainant before the learned trial Court and registration of the complaint is an abuse of process of law and therefore, the same may be set aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 6. From perusal of the complaint, filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. which is annexed as Annexure A/2 in the present petition, it is quite vivid that here the allegation of abusing and threatening to the complainant by the accused on the alleged date and time. For registration of the offence, only prima facie material is to be seen and the Court is not required to meticulously examined the allegations made in the complaint or the document produced by the complainant for registration of the offence. From perusal of the order dated 23.08.2024 passed by learned trial Court as well as the order dated 09.04.2025 passed by learned Revisional Court, it appears that after adverting the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as evidence produced before it, the learned trial Court as well as Revisional Court has passed its order in which I do not find any perversity or illegality which warrants interference in the order impugned. 7. Accordingly, the petition does not have any merits and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sagrika SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.04.30 09:49:50 +0530