1 2025:CGHC:27464 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1934 of 2025 1 - Manoj Sharma S/o Late Ramavtar Sharma Aged About 30 Years Caste Bramhan R/o Korba Tahsil And District - Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Katghora, District - Korba (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Ramkumari W/o Puran Singh Ex Sarpanch, Tahsil Podi - Uproda, Police Station Katghora, District - Korba (C.G.) 3 - Manharan Diwan S/o Vishaldas Diwan Caste Panika R/o Village Rampur Tahsil Podi - Uproda, Police Station Katghora, District - Korba (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Anchala Rathore, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Anuradha Jain PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 24/06/2025 PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.06.25 15:35:09 +0530 2 1. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that against the order dated 13.12.2024, cognizance has been taken only against the two persons, namely, Rakesh Sharma and Rajesh Sharma for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 34 of the IPC, though the complaint has been filed against seven persons and no case has been registered against respondents No.2 and 3. However, she further submits that this Petition has wrongly been filed as an Acquittal Appeal as there is provision under Section 398 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which says that when an order has been passed under Section 203 or sub- section (4) of Section 204, a Revision would lie. For the sake of brevity, the said provision reads as under:- “398. Power to order inquiry.-On examining any record under Section 397 or otherwise, the High Court or the Sessions Judge may direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate by himself or by any of the Magistrates subordinate to him to make, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate may himself make or direct any subordinate Magistrate to make, further inquiry into any complaint which has been dismissed under Section 203 or sub-section (4) of section 204 or into the case of any person accused of an offence who has been discharged: Provided that no Court shall make any direction under this section for inquiry into the case of any person who has been discharged unless such person has had an 3 opportunity of showing cause why such direction should not be made.” 2. Learned counsel for the State submits that this Petition is misconceived and wrongly filed under the heading of the Acquittal Appeal and the proper course is to file a Revision before the jurisdictional Sessions Court. 3. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw this Petition with liberty to file an appropriate Petition before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. 4. In view of the aforesaid, this Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn reserving the liberty as prayed for. 5. Registry shall return the certified copy of the judgment and relevant documents to counsel for the petitioner after retaining its photocopy. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Priyanka Judge