1 2025:CGHC:14019 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 570 of 2019 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja , Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Mahesh Agrawal S/o Babulal Agrawal, Aged About 40 Years R/o Bilaspur Raod, Laxmipur, Police Station Ambikapur District, Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For State/Appellant : Mr. Kishan Lal Sahu, Dy. Government Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Varsha Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order On Board 24.03.2025 1. The State/appellant has filed this acquittal appeal against the order dated 23.06.2018 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) in Criminal Case No. 3936 of 2011 by which learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent/accused on the count that the prosecution has not brought any evidence to prove charges levelled against respondent/accused for commission of offence under Sections 341, 294 and 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. BHUMIKA ANGARE Digitally signed by BHUMIKA ANGARE Date: 2025.04.15 14:26:25 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Rajesh Kumar Garg lodged a complaint before Police Station Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) alleging that on 17.05.2011 when the complainant was returning from his land at Village Sundarpur then the accused at about 02.00 pm stopped him, abused him using filthy language and threatened that he has to pay “Rangdari Tax” failing which he will be killed and started assaulting and also threatened that whenever he will go there he will be assaulted. It is also case of the prosecution that on 18.05.2011 vide mobile No. 9926134094 the accused called the complainant and demanded money due to which the complainant got scared and lodged complaint before the Police Station. 3. The prosecution has recorded the statement of the complainant Rajesh Kumar Garg and other witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.. The prosecution after usual investigation submitted the charge-sheet before learned trial Court on 30.05.2011 and charges were framed on 18.08.2014 for commission of offence under Section 294, 341, 506-II, thereafter, the matter was taken up on 05.12.2012 for recording statement of witnesses and learned trial Court has issued summons to the witnesses but the witnesses were not present therefore proceedings were adjourned to various dates for appearance of the witnesses. Even the complainant was not present before the learned trial Court, therefore, vide order dated 09.01.2017 the trial Court has fixed the matter granting last opportunity to the prosecution for recording of evidence on 07.02.2017 and again on 07.02.2017 the witnesses were not present despite issuance of summons and bailable warrants, but the record of the case would demonstrate that neither the summons nor the bailable warrant issued to the witnesses have been 3 served upon to them, as such, the trial Court finally closed the right of the prosecution to lead evidence on 23.06.2018 and thereafter, vide impugned order dated 23.06.2018 acquitted the accused for the offence under Sections 341, 294, 506-II of the IPC. Being aggrieved with this order the instant acquittal appeal has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the State/appellant has placed on record criminal antecedents of the accused and would submit that 10 cases are pending against him which read as under: S. No. Crime No. Sections 1. 948/1994 341, 366, 376(D) of the I.P.C. and 3, 10 of the SC & ST Act 2. 949/1994 341, 366, 376(D) of the I.P.C. and 3, 10 of the SC & ST Act 3. 98/1998 13 of the Gambling Act 4. 433/1999 13 of the Gambling Act 5. 203/2008 13 of the Gambling Act 6. 464/10 13 of the Gambling Act 7. 483/09 13 of the Gambling Act 8. 04/10 341, 294, 323, 386, 507 of the I.P.C. 9. 288/11 341, 294, 506 of the I.P.C. 10. 47/17 294, 506, 323, 34 of the I.P.C. Thus, he would further submit that because criminal antecedents of the accused, the witnesses must have not turned up, therefore, he would submit that the matter may be remitted back to the trial Court for deciding the case in accordance with law. 5. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent opposing the submission would submit that the prosecution has not led any evidence from 2014 to 2018 therefore, learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in dismissing the complaint. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4 7. From the record, it is quite vivid that neither summons nor bailable warrant have been issued by the learned trial Court to the prosecution witnesses have been served upon despite this the learned trial Court has not taken any further steps permissible under the law including issuance of warrant of arrest to the witnesses or the complainant. Therefore, the trial Court has not exercised the power conferred upon it in doing the criminal law justice, which warrants interference by this Court. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.06.2018 is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the trial Court for fresh adjudication, in accordance with law. 8. The learned trial Court is directed to issue summons to the witnesses, accused and if the witnesses are not turned-up he may take further steps as provided under the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and will conclude the trial. 9. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, District Surguja for compliance. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Bhumika