1 2025:CGHC:3462 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1542 of 2018 Shahbaan Khan S/o Late Abdul Shakur Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Pendra, Police Station And Tehsil Pendra Revenue And Civil District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus Motichand Jain S/o Pratapchand Jain Aged About 54 Years R/o Near Jain Dhramashala Pendra, Police Station And Tehsil Pendra Revenue And Civil District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Earlier Posted As In-Charge Chief Municipal Officer, Municial Council Pendra, Police Station And Tehsil Pendra Revenue And Civil District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 20.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Surfaraj Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that the petition may kindly 2 be allowed and the order dated 11/04/2018 (Annexure P-1) and 22/11/2017 (Annexure P/2), may kindly be quashed, and the matter may kindly be remanded back to the court of learned J.M.F.C. Pendra Road, District- Bilaspur (C.G.), for adjudicating the matter on merits, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this case are that the petitioner/applicant has filed a Complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Pendra Road, District- Bilaspur (C.G), against the respondent with the allegation that the respondent with illegal means is trying to grab the land bearing Khasra No. 2955/1 and 2932/1, situated at village- Pendra, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) with the plea that the land of the petitioner is a source point of River Arpa. So a written complaint was made by the petitioner before the Jurisdictional Police Station Pendra. However, when no action was taken by the police, then the petitioner has filed the complaint before the learned J.M.F.C. Pendra for lodging offences U/s 166, 167, 383, 384 and 385 of Indian Penal Code. Whereas, the learned trial court has dismissed the complaint filed by your petitioner/complainant on 22/11/2017 without even registering the same, as per section 203 of Cr.P.C. Whereas, being aggrieved by the order of dismissal of complaint dated 22/11/2017, the petitioner/complainant has preferred a revision before the court of Additional session judge Pendra Road, wherein, the learned session judge has dismissed the criminal revision on 11/04/2018. 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the during the course of enquiry under Section 202 (1) of the Cr.P.C., the magistrate is entitled to rely only upon the materials i.e. the complaint itself and the statement of the complainant on oath and statements of witnesses examined at the instance of the complainant and the result of the enquiry or investigation, if any, conducted u/s 202 Cr.P.C. or the materials collected under this section, as the case may be and the learned magistrate will not be entitled to look into other materials either to base his order for dismissal of complaint u/s 202 Cr.P.C. or to issue a notice u/s 204 Cr.P.C. The orders passed by both the courts below is erroneous for the reason that, at the time of proceeding prior to registration of complaint the court of learned magistrate ought to have relied upon the contents of complaint rather than to other materials. Even, this Hon'ble Court in the matter of HARIRAM V/s SATISH PANDEY, reported in 2006 (0) Cr.L.J. 4030 (relevant paragraphs 9 to 11) has dealt the issue regarding the powers u/s 202, 203 & 204 of Cr.P.C. The learned courts below have failed to see that, by rejecting the complaint and revision preferred by the petitioner, the sum and substance of sections 202, 204 Cr.P.C. has been complied or not. The offences committed by the respondent cannot be absolved from person from criminal liability, which has been committed with deliberate intentions to defraud the petitioner. Even the petitioner has filed a written complaint before the police Station Pendra on 05/03/2016, along with relevant 4 documents. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents appended with petition. 6. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the learned trial Court dismissed the complainant of the petitioner observing that the witness of the non-applicant has given evidence that as per the investigation report presented in Motichand Jain, no crime has been found to have been committed in the case. As per the statement of Modichand presented alongwith the said investigation report, the alleged board is called Arpa Nala from the drain situated in Pendra Amarpur PWD main road, the board has been put up on the road since his tenure. He does not know by whom and when the board was put up. The board has not been put up on the land of the applicant, it has been put up on the road. As per the investigation report presented as above, no crime has been committed by the non-applicant and in this case, no document has been submitted by the applicant after getting any type of site investigation done. From the presented complaint documents and evidence, it is proved that the non-applicant has not done any crime. Further, the revisional Court has affirmed the order passed by the trial Court. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also considering the finding recorded by the revisional Court while affirming the order of the learned trial Court, 5 I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the revisional Court. Accordingly, this petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/-S Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.01.22 11:11:16 +0530