1 2025:CGHC:26778 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1743 of 2025 • Pawan Kumar Gupta S/o Sardari Lal Gupta, Aged About 66 Years, Mobile - 9893210315, R/o M-20, Sector-1, Avanti Vihar, Raipur- 492001 (Chhattisgarh). ... Petitioner versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through- District Magistrate, Ambikapur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh). ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Gupta, Son of the Petitioner. For State/Respondent : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy.G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 23/06/ 2025 1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 read with Section 529 of BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 30.04.2025 passed by the learned JMFC, Ambikapur District-Surguja (C.G.) in Crime No. 03/2023. 2. Facts of the present case are that the petitioner alleges malicious prosecution by his daughter-in-law, who lodged multiple complaints, resulting in FIRs against the petitioner and his family. The petitioner challenged these FIRs before the High SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.06.26 17:57:19 +0530 2 Court, which quashed them vide order dated 15.07.2024, finding the allegations to be general and omnibus. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a complaint before the JMFC, Ambikapur, against his daughter-in-law, seeking accountability and compensation for harassment, mental agony, loss of reputation, and emotional distress caused by the false FIRs. 3. Petitioner present in person and humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the learned trial Court to expedite the trial and disposal of the petitioner’s complaint, ensuring the petitioner’s right to be heard through virtual mode, and set aside the order dated 30.04.2025 passed by learned JMFC, Ambikapur, Surguja. 4. I have heard the Petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition including the order sheets of the Trial Court. 5. The order-sheet dated 30.04.2025 is held as under:- 30.04.2025 आवे दक पवेन क मार गुप्ता क विवेवियो कन्फ्रे सिंगु क माध्योमा उपस्थि"#वि$ दर्ज& विकयो गुयो। प्रकरण पर्ज*योन प+वे& क्ष्यो हे $ विनयो$ हे.। प्रकरण क अवेलोकन विकयो गुयो। प्रकरण क अवेलोकन दवि1&$ हे. विक प्रकरण मा2 प्र"$$ बहे4$ द"$वे र्ज5 क ख्यो असिं7क हे. सिंर्ज करण "वेयो उपस्थि"#$ हेकर क्ष्यो करयो र्जन उवि8$ एवे आवेश्योक प्र$*$ हे$ हे.। आवे दक पवेन क मार गुप्ता "वे$; विवेवियो कन्फ्रे सिंगु क माध्योमा "वेयो भौ=वि$क रूप उपस्थि"#$ हेन मा2 अमा#&$ हेन व्योक्त विकयो $# अपन विAयो क उपस्थि"#$ करन हे $ पर्ज*योन प+वे& क्ष्यो हे $ एक मायो विदयो र्जन क विनवे दन विकयो गुयो। विवे8र बद "वे*कB $। विनदCवि1$ विकयो र्ज$ हे. विक आगुमा* वि$#*. पर आवे दक अपन विAयो विहे$ पर्ज*योन प+वे& क्ष्यो हे $ उपस्थि"#$ रहे2। प्रकरण पर्ज*योन प+वे& क्ष्यो हे $ विदनक 01.07.2025. हे*/- (अरिंरदमा न रलो) न्योवियोक मासिंर्ज"ट्रेL ट्रे प्र#मा श्रे ण*, अस्थिOबकपर, छ०गु० 3 6. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner (Pawan Kumar Gupta) by his son Shri Raul Gupta, that according to Section 530 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, all proceedings should be conducted in electronic mode. However, the learned trial Court, vide impugned order dated 30.04.2025, has directed the petitioner/complainant to appear before the Court along with their witnesses for pre-registration evidence, contrary to the statutory provision that requires such evidence to be recorded electronically. Hence, the said impugned order is sought to be quashed. 7. The provision under Section 530 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is held as under:- 530. All trials, inquires and proceedings under this Sanhita, including- (I) issuance, service and execution of summons and warrant; (ii) examination of complainant and witnesses; (iii) recording of evidence in inquiries and trials; and (iv) all appellate proceedings or any other proceeding, may be held in electronic mode, by use of electronic communication or use of audio-video electronic means. 8. A perusal of the above makes it clear that the legislature has used the word "may", indicating that the provision is not mandatory, requiring all inquiries and trials to be conducted in electronic mode. The petitioner himself has admitted during the arguments that since filing the complaint, he has never appeared in person before the court. The order sheet of the trial court also reveals that Rahul Gupta, son of the petitioner, who appeared on behalf of the petitioner, has several cases pending against his wife in various courts. It is also evident that the 4 petitioner intends to present numerous documents in support of his case and the dispute involves complex issues. In such circumstances, the direction of the trial Court to the petitioner/complainant to appear in person and present evidence with their witnesses in person does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. Therefore, no interference is required in it. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby dismissed at motion stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.