1 2025:CGHC:23114 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1012 of 2015 Sunil Kumar Jangde S/o Manmohan Lal Aged About 42 Years R/o House No. 52/92, Police Colony, P.S. Torwa, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, ... Petitioner versus 1 - Manju Jangde W/o Sunil Kumar Jangde Aged About 37 Years R/o House No. 52/92, Police Colony, P.S. Torwa, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Presently R/o Village Panchmedi, P.S. Masturi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, 2 - Surendra Khandekar S/o Sanna Khandekar Aged About 32 Years Profession Police Constable, P.S. Mallkaroda, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. B.L. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11.06.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of CrPC for being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 21.09.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No.214/2014 whereby the learned revisional Court dismissed the revision arising out of the order dated 17.11.2014 passed by the Judicial PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.06.12 14:25:38 +0530 2 Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 7476/2014. 2. The prosecution story, in short, is that the petitioner/complainant filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for registering the offence under Sections 294, 323, 324, 506 B, 380, 497 and 507 of Indian Penal Code, against 8 persons, including the respondents/accused. Marriage of complainant was solemnized on 06.5.1998 with Manju Jangde/respondent No.1 and after marriage, she was residing with the petitioner and out of their wedlock, one son namely Bhanu Pratap Singh, who is presently aged about 10 years, was born. Petitioner/complaint used to go on his duty sometime in the day and sometime in the night and at that time, his wife Manu Jangde and son Bhanu Pratap Singh used to stay at home. When the petitioner used to go on his duty, his wife Manju Jangde used to call her paramour i.e. respondent herein and developed physical relations with him. When the son of petitioner namely Bhanu Pratap came to know about the illicit relation of Manju Jangde and respondent, then the respondent threatened him to kill. It is further submitted by the petitioner that one day, the petitioner had caught raid handed to the respondent No.2 and Manju Jangde in objectionable condition and thereafter the petitioner came to aware about phone call and pornography between the respondent and Manju Jangde. It was further alleged by the complainant that he had made complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur on which call details of mobile no. 9329719793, 917450799, 9098155121 & 7817222098, belongs to respondent were verified and found that the respondent has talked with the wife of complainant in the long periods. Complainant called a social meeting, in which, his wife was advised not to behave like this. The said Manju Jangde threatened the complainant/petitioner for implicating him in false case and thereafter she stealing golden ornaments and cash Rs. 3 75,000/- and went to her parental house. The complainant taken back his wife, but she again went to her parental home along with remaining household articles. Thereby the respondent has committed the aforesaid offences. After recording preliminary statement of complainant and his witnesses, the trial Court registered the case and framed charge under Section 497 of IPC against the respondent No. 2 and also registered the case and framed charge under section 324, 506 part II and 507 of I.P.C. against the respondent No. 1, thereafter after recording statement of petitioner and his witnesses, the trial Court found the respondents are guilty of offence under Section 497 of IPC and sentence him R.I. for 6 months with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine 15 days additional R.I., however the said Manju Jangde was convicted under Section 324, 506 part II of IPC and sentenced her accordingly, vide judgment dated 17.11.2014. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/complainant submits that the impugned judgment dated 21.09.2015 passed by learned revisional Court is bad in law, perverse and contrary to the material evidence available on record, therefore it is liable to be set-aside. The learned revisional Court has failed to appreciate the documents and evidences produced before it in its correct perspective. He also submits that the learned revisional Court failed to appreciate that the Surendra Khandekar (respondent No.2) knowing fully well that Smt. Manju Jangde (respondent No.1) is the wife of petitioner, had developed physical relation with her, therefore, the trial Court has rightly convicted the respondent No.2 under Section 497 of IPC and further convicted respondent No.1 under Sections 324 and 506 Part II of I.P.C. The findings recorded by the revisional Court is bad in law, perverse, erroneous and contrary to the material available on record, therefore, it is liable to be set-aside. 4 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned revisional Court which needs no interference by this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. From perusal of the documents available on record and from the order/judgment passed by the revisional Court, it transpires that the complainant has failed to prove the guilt of the accused/respondents beyond reasonable doubt and in such a condition, enhancement of sentence cannot be ordered. Thus, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order, therefore, the instant petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and from perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned revisional Court, I am of the view that the revisional Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. The trial Court record be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti