1 2025:CGHC:15983 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 157 of 2017 Smt. Preeti Meshram W/o Shri Himanshu Wasnik Aged About 26 Years Occupation- Ex-Engineer (BSNL), R/o Sahdevnagar, Ward No. 18 Rajnandgaon, Police Station- Basantpur, Civil And Revenue District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Himanshu Wasnik S/o Shri Vivek Wasnik Aged About 28 Years R/o Bharkapara, Thana- City Kotwali Rajnandgaon, Civil And Revenue District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Vivek Wasnik S/o Shiva Wasnik Aged About 55 Years R/o Bharkapara, Thana- City Kotwali Rajnandgaon, Civil And Revenue District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Kavita Wasnik W/o Vivek Wasnik Aged About 52 Years R/o Bharkapara, Thana- City Kotwali Rajnandgaon, Civil And Revenue District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Vikas Wasnik S/o Shri Shiva Wasnik Aged About 50 Years R/o Bharkapara, Thana- City Kotwali Rajnandgaon, Civil And Revenue District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Smt. Sonal Wasnik W/o Shri Dharampriya Wasnik Aged About 48 Years R/o Kanchanbag, Thana- City Kotwali Rajnandgaon, Civil And Revenue District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 6 - Dharampriya Wasnik S/o Shri D.D. Wasnik Aged About 48 Years R/o Kanchanbag, Thana- City Kotwali Rajnandgaon, Civil And Revenue District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 7 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through The District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon, Civil And Revenue District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Waquar Naiyer, Advocate, appearing on behalf of Mr. Narendra Mehar, Advocate. For Private Respondents : Mr. Shishir Dixit, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 26.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. Waquar Naiyer, Advocate, appearing on behalf of Mr. Narendra Mehar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shishir Dixit, learned counsel for the private respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of CrPC for being aggrieved by the order dated 28.11.2016 passed in Criminal Revision No. 55/2016 by learned Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.), arising out of the order dated 02.08.2016 passed in unregistered Criminal Complaint Case by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.), whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner before the revisional Court was dismissed. 3. The prosecution story, in short, is that the petitioner/complainant RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 3 filed a complaint case under section 200 of Cr.P.C. for prosecuting the respondents/accused persons under Sections 419, 420, 120- B, 498-A/34 of IPC. The complaint case filed before the Court of JMFC, Rajnandgaon, Durg, was dismissed at the stage of registration of the complaint. Being aggrieved by dismissal of her complaint the complainant filed revision petition which was also dismissed by the order impugned, therefore, the petitioner is filling the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before this Court. 4. The petitioner was posted as Engineer in BSNL on regular basis and as she attained the age of marriage her family members got registered her name in one Marriage Buero in Raipur. The respondent No.1 and his family members i.e., the respondent No.2 to 4 saw the profile of the petitioner and asked the respondent No. 5 and 6 to contact the family of the complainant as both the families belonged to same place i.e.. Rajnandgaon and they are of same community. The respondent No. 5 and 6 brought the proposal of marriage of the respondent No. 1 to the father of petitioner, therefore, the petitioner’s father asked them to come with the Bio-data of the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 sent his bio data and photographs to the petitioner through E-mail on her mail Id. In the bio data it was mentioned that the respondent No.1 was graduate engineer i.e.. B.E. Mechanical and the Monthly salary was shown as Rs. 1,50,000/- lacks and further the detail of family has been mentioned in the said Bio-data of the 4 respondent No.1. Looking to the educational qualification which is similar to the educational qualification of petitioner and on strong persuasion of respondents No. 5 and 6 the family members agreed for marriage and with consent of both the families the marriage was solemnized on 27.03.2011 at Fatte Singh Marriage Hall, Anupam Nagar, Rajnandgaon and after marriage the complainant/petitioner started residing with the non-applicant No. 1 at his house with joint family. 5. After some time of the marriage, the petitioner came to know that the educational qualification of respondent No. 1 is only 12th pass and he does not have degree of B.E. Mechanical and he is not receiving the salary of Rs. 1.5 lacks per month and the petitioner further came to know that he is working under his father in the Gas Godown. When the complainant came to know all these facts this caused mental agony and the petitioner realized that she and her family has been cheated by the respondent No. 1 to 4 with the help of respondent No. 5 and 6 who were the mediator in the marriage. 6. After some time of the marriage the original face of the respondents was revealed and they started to harass the petitioner by demanding the cash amount and dowry and the respondent No. 1 snatched her ATM card and also the code and withdrawn about Rs. 3,00,000/- from her account and forcibly kept all the ornaments of petitioner and when she asked for the same 5 she was told by respondent No.1 to ask her father to give another set of jewelry. The further case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 1 to 4 have demanded more dowry from the petitioner, and in continuation of demand beaten her and given the physical and mental cruelty and on number of occasions after drinking liquor the respondent No. 1 has misbehaved with her with the patronage and assistance of the other respondents. On 30.05.2012 when a baby girl was born, the respondent No. 1 to 4 left her at her parental House just after 10 days of delivery. The respondents have levelled the allegations upon the petitioner regarding her character and due to the harassment of the respondents petitioner lodged a written report at Police station Basantpur, Distt. Rajnandgaon on 22.02.2014 against the respondents. The Police did not took any action on the report of the petitioner as they are influential persons, therefore, the petitioner filed the complaint case against the respondents for registering the offence under Sections 419, 420, 120-B, 498/34 of IPC. 7. The petitioner filed various documents in support of her complaint and she also examine the witnesses in support of the contention made in the complaint and prima-facie from perusal of the statement of the witnesses there is sufficient material to register the offence against the respondents as the respondents have cheated the petitioner first informing that the respondent No. 1 is B. E. Mechanical and is having 1.5 lacks per month Income and 6 the respondent No. 4 and 5 having the knowledge about the qualification of the respondent No. 1 but with intention to cheat the petitioner and her family they have entered into conspiracy to get the consent of marriage by showing the forged degree of Engineering and by sending the false information through the Mail. 8. 8. On 05.02.2016 preliminary statement of petitioner/complainant and her witnesses were recorded before registration of the complaint in which they have clearly stated how the respondents have committed the offence by concocting the documents and did not bring the true facts regarding the qualification and income of the respondent No.1 submitted the wrong fact for obtained the consent for marriage and given the cruel treatment to the petitioner and harass the petitioner by demand of dowry and due to the said act of the respondents petitioner life is destroyed but the learned trial Court dismissed the complaint at the stage of registration itself without proper consider the material available on record and recorded the reasoning that the petitioner and her witness has failed to prove the ingredients of the offence though at the time of registration the Court has to see that whether from perusal of the complaint and statement record prima-facie the ingredients of offence is available for prosecuting the accused persons or not the court has not appreciate the evidence in a manner whether the offence is proved because in a complaint case after recording the preliminary statement the witnesses 7 required to deposed before the court for proving the offence but the learned trial Court did not consider the material available in the record and dismissed the complaint. 9. The petitioner preferred the revision petition before the learned revisional Court against the order dated 02.08.2016 by challenging the order passed by the trial Court on taking various legal ground as from perusal of the statement of petitioner, her witnesses as well as the documents attached with the complaint case there is sufficient material for registration of the complaint case and taking cognizance in the matter. 10. The learned revisional Court also dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner by passing the impugned order without considering the legal aspects of the matter and without considering the evidence produce by the petitioner as well as her witnesses and relied upon the findings of the trial Court and further the revisional Court has dismissed the revision on the ground that in a proceedings under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act petitioner has refused to reside with the non-applicant No. 1 and recorded the reasoning that she did not wants to resides with the non applicant therefore the false complaint has been made though the petitioner clearly proved that from the first day the respondents have cheated her and obtained the consent of marriage by submitting the false certificate and the other respondents having the knowledge of the educational qualification of the respondent No. 1 8 but they entered into conspiracy but the said fact has not been considered by the revisional Court and dismissed the revision petition. Hence, this petition. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the order impugned is bad in eyes of law as the Police of the concerned Police Station has not taken any action on the report lodged by the petitioner, therefore, she filed the complaint case before the learned trial Court and the trial Court after recording the preliminary statement on complaint dismissed the complaint at the stage of registration mentioning that the offence is not proved though from perusal of the material available on record prima- facie the ingredients of offence is made out against the respondents. The learned trial Court as well as the revisional Court has not considered the statement of witnesses available on record and passed the impugned order though it is the well settled provision of the law the Court has to consider prima facie material which can attract the ingredients of the offence for registration of the complaint case and the court has not examine the witness and evidence whether the offence is proved or not. The learned revisional Court ought to have directed for further inquiry by invoking the power under Section 398 of Cr.P.C. which relates to further inquiry and examination of record but the Court has given the findings contrary to material available on record and relied the order-sheet of counseling though the counseling is different from the present case as in the present case the cause of action arose 9 in the Month of January, 2011, to the May, 2012, and the counseling took place on 21.02.2014 before the family Court therefore the findings recorded by the Session judge is bad in eyes of law. It is also submitted that the learned revisional Court as well as trial Court have committed an error of law in relying the report submitted by the Police because the petitioner first made the complaint before the Police but no action has been taken by the concern Police therefore she filed the complaint case and also produced the evidence in support of her case and allegations labeled in the complaint. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and supports the impugned judgment and order dated 28.11.2016 passed in Criminal Revision No. 55/2016 by learned Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.), arising out of the order dated 02.08.2016 passed in unregistered Criminal Complaint Case by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.), whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned revisional Court, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 10 14. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the judgments/orders of the trial Court as well as the revisional Court, it transpires that no good ground has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner in the present case showing the importance of the present petition for quashment of the impugned order, thus, it is clear that after considering all the materials and after applying mind the learned revisional Court has passed the impugned order dated 28.11.2016 in Criminal Revision No. 55/2016, arising out of the order dated 02.08.2016 passed in unregistered Criminal Complaint Case by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.), whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned revisional Court, and there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order. 15. Accordingly, the instant petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits, liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 16. 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 Rajshekhar