1 2025:CGHC:2829 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1191 of 2018 Lata Usendi D/o Mangalram Usendi Aged About 41 Years R/o Sargipal Para, Kondagaon, Tehsil and District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus Mohan Lal Markam S/o Shri Bhikhram Markam Aged About 48 Years R/o Bhelvapdar Ward, Kondagaon, Tehsil and District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate along with Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shobhit Koshta learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate along with Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate, appearing for respondent. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of CrPC for being aggrieved by the order dated 08/05/2018 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon, C.G. in Criminal Revision No. 13/16, whereby the said Court dismissed the petitioner's revision which was preferred against the order dated 13/01/15, whereby PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.01.21 10:51:22 +0530 2 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kondagaon has rejected the complaint of the petitioner against the respondent under Section 200 of CrPC which is illegal and contrary to the provision of law. 3. The prosecution story, in short, is that the petitioner filed the complaint under Section 200 of CrPC against the respondent and submitted that the petitioner is a candidate of Bhartiya Janta Party contesting the election of Vidhan Sabha from the election area No. 83, Kondagaon and the respondent was also contesting election from the same seat as representative of Indian National Congress. The respondent filed nomination paper No. 01/01, 01/02, 01/03, 01/04. At that time, the petitioner filed two objections stating that the respondent herein has submitted false information regarding his properties and income before the Election OfÏcer. One of the objections was preferred before the State Election Commission, Raipur which directed the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy before the concerned Court. Hence, the petitioner then filed a complaint under Section 200 of CrPC on 28/01/14 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon stating that by furnishing false and incorrect information in his nomination form, the respondent has committed offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. It was stated by the petitioner in his complaint that the respondent was owner of agricultural land, Khasra No. 1071/18 and 1071/19, Area 4.75 acres. The respondent herein by way of plotting sold the above mentioned land at the rate of square feet to various persons and in turn earned crores of rupees which he has not stated in his nomination paper. It was further submitted that the respondent being a member of aboriginal tribe by plotting his land sold it to non-advashi people without obtaining permission of the Collector as required under Section 165 (6) of CG land Revenue Code and without 3 following the necessary procedure prescribed sold the land. Moreover, the respondent in his afÏdavit has given contrary statement with regard to his assets in the nomination paper which shows that false information has been given by the respondent. In Clause 8, it has been shown that one Maina Markam has given Rs 2,73,000/- to the respondent. However, the same has not been shown in S. No. 7 of the afÏdavit filed by respondent. It was alleged that the respondent has developed Anjali Vihar Colony which is agricultural land, the information of which has not been shown by the respondent in his nomination paper. Moreover, by plotting and selling land to various non-tribal people, the respondent has amassed crores of rupees which has not been shown by the respondent in S. No. 8 (i) (iv) of his nomination paper. Further, it has been stated in S. No. 7 A (iv) that land situated at Survey No.- 626/94A, Total area- 5227 sq. feet in which a commercial building has been constructed in name of wife of respondent and it has also been stated in the said land, the respondent has also shown his residential house which is contrary and thus, false information. Furthermore, the said land is agricultural land as stated in S. No. 7 (A) and no diversion documents has been filed in this regard along with the source wherefrom the above mentioned property has been inherited by the respondent. Hence, the petitioner prayed to this Court for taking cognizance of the complaint and registered a case against the respondent under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after registering the complaint. Thereafter, the petitioner/ complainant filed notarized documents in support of the complaint and examined herself. After hearing of the parties dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner vide order dated 13/1/15 by holding that the grievance raised by the petitioner can be adjudicated only by Election Commission and the District Election 4 OfÏcer has the authority to take action against the respondent and not the petitioner. Against the order dated 13/01/15, the petitioner preferred a petition under Section 482 of CrPC before thsi High Court which is registered as CRMP No. 510/2015. After issuance of notice, the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 16/02/16 disposed off the matter with liberty to the petitioner to filed revision before the Court of Session as per provision of Section 397 of CrPC. As per the direction of this Court, the petitioner filed revision before the Session Court, Kondagaon stating that the learned trial Court was not justified in rejecting the petitioner complaint on the ground that the grievance can be adjudicated only before Election Commission and that to by District Election OfÏcer and not the petitioner. The learned revisional Court after hearing the petitioner/ complaint without properly appreciating the contentions of the petitioner dismissed the revision holding that the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in holding that the petitioner is not the one who has been cheated by the respondent and thus, she is not the aggrieved person to filed the complaint. Moreover, with respect to giving false information in the nomination paper, the learned trial Court held that the District Election OfÏcer is the competent authority to take action in this regard against the respondent. The learned trial Court has erred in law by not considering the provision of Section 200 of CrPC, Section 125A of Representation of people Act, 1951 in its proper prospect . Hence, the petitioner has filed the instant petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent herein has submitted false information regarding his properties and income before the Election OfÏcer. The learned trial Court ought to have consider that as per Section 125A of Representation of People Act, 1951, the learned competent criminal Court has the power to take 5 cognizance and it is not the Election Commission who has the jurisdiction in such case. In the present case, from the documents and statement of complainant, it is evidently clear that the respondent/ accused has withheld and given false information with regard to his income and assets. He further submits that the learned trial Court has erred in not considering the fact that the income shown by the respondent in his nomination paper is false. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent being of member of aborigional tribe in complete violation of the Provision of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code has sold his land to person who are non-tribal people which is in utter disregard to the provision of Law. As per facts and circumstances of the case and oral and documentary oral and evidence on record an offence has been committed by the respondent which was required to be investigated. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set-aside. To support his contentions, learned counsel further relied upon the judgments passed in the matters of K.B. Ganesh Kumar Vs. P.K. Raju and Anr. reported in 2013 SCC OnLine Ker 24308 and Nishant Deshdipak Varma Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in 2015 SCC OnLine Guj 920. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and supports the impugned judgment dated 08/05/2018 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon, C.G. in Criminal Revision No. 13/16. He further submits that the learned trial Courts after proper appreciation of the evidence have passed the impugned order. He further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order, therefore, the instant 6 petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. From perusal of the documents available on record and the order/judgment passed by the trial Court, it transpires that the petitioner/complainant failed to clarify the income of respondent and his wife, and how the agricultural land and assets were acquired. Further the respondent has submitted all the relevant information to the District Election Officer. In such circumstances, an investigation should have been conducted by the Election Officer and the Income Tax Department to verify the respondent's income. However, both the Departments did not file a complaint before the trial Court. In such a situation, the petitioner/complainant was unable to explain how they could proceed against the respondent, as the authority to take action lies with the District Election Officer and other Departments, not with the petitioner/complainant. Moreover, the trial Court did not commit any factual or legal error. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the evidence and judgments/orders of the trial Court as well as the revisional Court, it is clear that after proper appreciation of the evidence, the learned revisional Court has rightly passed the impugned order dated 08/05/2018 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon, C.G. and hence, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error which may call interference by this Court. 7 9. Accordingly, the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits, liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti