1 2025:CGHC:5294 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 963 of 2022 1 - Smt. Seema Agrawal W/o Vishnu Prasad Agrawal Aged About 43 Years R/o Dabhra Road, Kharsiya, Police Station And Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Officer Incharge Of Police Chowki Kharsiya, Police Station Kharsiya, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Rekha Agrawal D/o Late Amilal Agrawal Aged About 56 Years W/o Late Ramesh Agrawal, R/o Dabhra Road, Kharsiya, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Sudhir Agrawal S/o Late Ramesh Agrawal Aged About 32 Years R/o Dabhra Road, Kharsiya, Tahsil Kharsiya, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Roop Ram Naik, Advocate. For the State : Ms. Prabha Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 29/01/2025 1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Digitally signed by NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Date: 2025.03.20 15:24:00 +0530 2 2. Petitioner has preferred this CRMP under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 against the order dated 07/04/2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Criminal Revision No. 10/2022, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner has been rejected. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner and her husband went their house on 27/02/2017, then the respondent No. 2 and 3 abused with filthy language and they were not allow to enter the house and committed marpeet and forcefully stop them. The petitioner and her husband made a complaint before the Police. On 07/03/2017 the petitioner and her husband went their house then they saw that the respondent No. 2 & 3 have committed theft by broken two almirah which was kept in the bedroom of the petitioner in which the gold and silver ornament and cash amount was to keep safe. On the said complaint Police has not taken any action against the respondents No. 2 & 3 and proceeded under Section 155 of CrPC thereafter petitioner made written complaint to the SDO (P) and SP Raigarh. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that learned trial Court has wrongly held that the order dated 10/01/2022 is an interlocutory order and the revision is not maintainable as per Section 397(2) of CrPC. He further submits that learned Judicial Magistrate has already entertain the complaint case of the petitioner and after consideration the evidence available on record, the case has been registered against the respondents No. 2 & 3 for the offence under Section 294, 506(B), 457, 323 and 380 of IPC and directed to summons to the accused persons. Before issuing of summons the accused persons will tamper and 3 destroy the stolen property thereafter the petitioner will not able to prove her case with respect of offence under Section 380 of IPC. Order dated 10/01/2022 is substantially affects the rights of the petitioner hence which is not an interlocutory order because the said order the learned trial Court declined to direct the Police to seize the theft article from the possession of the accused persons. The important rights of the petitioner has been affected due to refusal of direction to police to seize the theft article and it cannot be said that the said order is purely of interlocutory order. 5. Learned State counsel supporting the order passed by the learned trial Court. 6. It appears from the material available on record that parties are relative to each other and there is family dispute by and between the parties. Petitioner has filed complaint case under Section 200 of the CrPC before the trial Court and the trial Court has registered the case against the respondents under Section 294, 506 (B), 323, 457 and 380 of IPC. The petitioner has filed application before the trial Court for seizure of ornaments and cash amount which has been rejected by the trial Court on 05/02/2019. The petitioner has filed revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Criminal Revision No.10/2022 which has been rejected on the ground that the order dated 10/01/2022 as an interlocutory order. On perusal of the record witness No.1 Smt. Seema Agrawal has deposed that the respondents No.2 and 3 have committed marpeet and thrown the articles from her house. She has also mentioned in para 5 that on 07/03/2017 when she went her room and saw that the lock of almirah was broken and her stridhan cash and gold 4 articles amount of Rs.5 Lacs was theft. In this regard on 07/03/2017 the Police has prepared inspection and prepared Panchnama in presence of witnesses and prepared list of articles in which 4 iron almirah has been shown and lock of 2 almirah was broken and locker was empty. Thereafter on 19th May 2018 when petitioner came for search of the house of the petitioner at that time she saw that two Godrej Almirah was not found. It is pertinent to mention here that on search Police has not found any ornaments or articles. The petitioner is relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Afaq Jahan, reported in (2006) 1 SCC 627 which is quoted below:- 9. But a Magistrate need not order any such investigation if he proposes to take cognizance of the offence. once he takes cognizance of the offence he has to follow the produce envisaged in Chpter XV of the Code. A reading of Section 202(1) of the Code makes the position clear that the investigation referred to therein is of a limited nature. The Magistrate can direct such an investigation to be made either by a police officer or by any other person. Such investigation is only for helping the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further. This can be discerned from the culminating words in Section 202(1) i.e. “or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceedings". 7. Petitioner is also relying upon the para 7 to 9 of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Suresh Chand Jain Vs. State of M.P., reported in (2001) 2 SCC 628 which is quoted below:- 5 7. In our opinion, the aforesaid direction given by the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Suresh Kwar V. State of Haryana is contrary to law and cannot be approved. Chapter XII of the Code contains provisions relating to "information to the police and their powers to investigate", whereas Chapter XV, which contains Section 202 deals with provisions relating to the steps which a Magistrate has to adopt while and after taking cognizance of any offence on a complaint. Provisions of the above two chapters deal with two different facets altogether, though there could be a common factor i.e. complaint filed by a person. Section 156, falling within Chapter XII, deals with powers of the police officers to investigate cognizable offences. True, Section 202 which falls under Chapter XV, also refers to the power of a Magistrate to "direct an investigation by a police officer". But the investigation envisaged in Section 202 is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 of the Code. Section 156 of the Code reads thus: "156. Police officer's power to investigate cognizable cases. (1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. (2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate. (3) Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as above mentioned." 8. The investigation referred to therein is a same investigation, the various steps to be adopted for it have 6 been elaborated in Chapter XII of the Code. Such investigation would start with making the entry in a book to be kept by the officer in charge of a police station, of the substance of the information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence. The investigation started thereafter can end up only with the report filed by the police as indicated in Section 173 of the Code. The investigation contemplated in that chapter can be commenced by the police even without the order of a Magistrate. But that does not mean that when a Magistrate orders an investigation under Section 156(3) it would be a different kind of investigation. Such investigation must also end up only with the report contemplated in Section 173 of the Code. But the significant point to be noticed is, when a Magistrate orders investigation under Chapter XII he does so before he takes cognizance of the offence. 9. But a Magistrate need not order any such investigation if he proposes to take cognizance of the offence. Once he takes cognizance of the offence he has to follow the procedure envisaged in Chapter XV of the Code. A reading of Section 202(1) of the Code would convince that the investigation referred to therein is of a limited nature. The Magistrate can direct such an investigation to be made either by a police officer or by any other person. Such investigation is only for helping the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further. This can be discerned from the culminating words in Section 202(1) i.e. "or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding". 7 8. On perusal of the record it reveals that the learned trial Court decline to direct the police to seize the article from the possession of the accused persons. 9. In the present case, it will be proved on the basis of evidence whether the complainant had four almirah in his possession or not and whether gold-silver jewellery or cash was kept inside them or not and whether the complainant had any movable property like almirah etc. there or not and if it is proved that it was in the possession of the complainant, then the burden of proof of rebuttal will be on the accused i.e. impugned order on notice for appearance of the accused neither reveals any loss of substantial justice nor does it appear to contain any illegality which goes to the root of the whole matter and adversely affects the case. Thus, it is found that the impugned order is an interlocutory order under Section 397(2). 10. The date of incident was occurred on 07/03/2017, therefore after lapse of 8 years direction to police for recovery the stolen property is not fruitful exercise, but if it is proved that by way of evidence that the goods were kept in the almirah and was theft, it may file application before the learned trial Court in further proceedings if so desire. It is directed that if application will be filed by the petitioner that the learned trial Court to take a fresh decision on its own merits. 11.Accordingly, the CRMP is disposed of. Sd/-Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Kamde