1 2025:CGHC:5100 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2044 of 2018 Chandan Katare S/o Late Ratan Lal Katare Aged About 49 Years R/o Subhash Ward, Bhatapara, Police Station- Bhatapara (Town), District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chandan @ Dadu S/o Rajendra Chhedaiya Aged About 31 Years R/ o Chhaya Kunj, Opp. School, Dhangaon, Police Officer- Dhangaon, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rajendra Chhedaiya @ Kumar Guruji S/o Ram Kishun Chhedaiya Aged About 55 Years R/o Chhaya Kunj, Opp. School, Dhangaon, Police Officer- Dhangaon, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Riban Bai W/o Rajendra Chhedaiya Aged About 50 Years R/o Chhaya Kunj, Opp. School, Dhangaon, Police Officer- Dhangaon, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ashish Chhedaiya S/o Ram Kishun Chhedaiya Aged About 50 Years R/o Block No.23-A, Street No.2, Sector-2, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Shashi W/o Ashish Chhedaiya Aged About 45 Years R/o Block No.23-A, Street No.2, Sector-2, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Raju S/o Ram Kishun Chhedaiya Aged About 58 Years R/o Block No.5, Qtr. No.I, Cross Street No.3, Sector 6, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN Date: 2025.01.29 10:43:30 +0530 2 7 - Aruna W/o Raju Chhedaiya Aged About 50 Years R/o Block No.5, Qtr. No.I, Cross Street No.3, Sector 6, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 8 - Hemant S/o Rajendra Chhedaiya Aged About 35 Years R/o Reserved Police Center, Bemetara, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 9 - Archna Baghel W/o Hemant Chhedaiya Aged About 30 Years R/o Reserved Police Center, Bemetara, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 10 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Superintendent of Police, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Abhijeet Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 to 9 : Ms. Sakshi Chhabra, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent No.10/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Abhijeet Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Sakshi Chhabra, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Malay Shrivastava, learned counsel for private respondents No. 1 to 9. As well as Ms. Ankita Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.10/State. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of CrPC for being aggrieved by the order dated 12.06.2018 passed in Criminal Revision No. H-40/2017 by learned Additional 3 Sessions Judge, Bhatapara, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), arising out of the order dated 23.11.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhatapara, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in an unregistered complaint case by which no direction has been issued to the Police authorities to register crime against the respondent No.1 to 9/accused, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned revisional Court. 3. The prosecution story, in short, is that the petitioner is the resident of Bhatapara having his business there and having very good reputation in the business as well as in the society. He is an active member of a particular political party and was the General Secretary of C.G. Kandra Adivasi Vikas Parishad. The respondents No. 1 to 9 are relatives and belongs to same family. Marriage of the daughter of the petitioner with the respondent No. 1 was settled and engagement ceremony was held on 29.11.2015 at Bhatapara. In the engagement ceremony, the petitioner has managed the entire affairs and arrangement of the ceremony and have arranged the meals and staying of 300 guests of the bridal side. After the engagement, the respondent No. 1 was frequently visited to Bhatapara to meet the daughter of the petitioner. In between that the respondent No. 1 has got prepared a list of dowry items which would be asked from the petitioner to give the same at the time of marriage. A Flat in the Surya Apartment, Honda City Car, Activa Scooter, Automatic Washing Machine, LED 4 TV, Apple Laptop, Home Theatre, Fridge, Air Conditioner, and other house hold articles were included in the list which is required by the respondent No. 1 as dowry at the time of marriage. Since, the petitioner is a heart patient, his daughter has not disclosed the list of the dowry article prepared by the respondent No. 1. On 20.12.2016, the respondent No. 2 has sent an SMS through his mobile phone No. 9589762880 in the mobile phone No. 9300295620, 9755972720 of the petitioner and broken the engagement of the daughter of the petitioner and the respondent No. 1. The petitioner was shocked and had asked the reasons for doing so but they adament in their stand and demanded dowry as per the list. Feeling embarrassed, the petitioner went in depression and became ill. The general meeting of Kandra Samaj was convened on 28-29/01/2017 at Village Sasaholi, Tilda, Distt. Raipur, and the petitioner was waited for coming of the respondents there so that he may raised the issue before the community meeting but the accused persons have not come there. Thereafter, when the petitioner's effort have not resulted in any conclusion, on 01.03.2017, he made a complaint to the Police of Police Station Bhatapara, about act and intention of the respondents No. 1 to 9 but the Police did nothing. On 20.03.2017, the petitioner made another complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Distt. Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara against the respondents No. 1 to 9. In the complaint, the petitioner made allegation that the respondents No. 1 to 9 have demanded dowry 5 as per the list and ultimately broken the engagement. The petitioner prayed that an action be taken against the respondents No. 1 to 9 against their illegal act of demand of dowry and pressurising him to give dowry. On 16.05.2017, the petitioner served legal notice to the respondents No. 1 to 9 and asked to pray pardon from him in writing or else, legal action will be taken against them. In reply to the legal notice, the respondents No. 1 to 9 have denied the allegations and submitted that they are still ready for the marriage and not broken the engagement. Thereafter, on 21.09.2017, the petitioner has filed an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. along with the relevant documents, before the learned trial Court, for taking cognizance of the matter and to direct the Police to inquire the matter. It is prayed in the application that since, the cognizable offence has been disclosed from the allegation, the offence under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and Section 499, 500 of I.P.C. be registered against the accused persons and cognizance of the offence be taken. On 23.11.2017, after hearing the petitioner, the learned trial Court has passed the order and rejected the application of the petitioner filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. by holding that from the complaint of the petitioner and the documents annexed with the application, commission of any cognizable offence does not appear and therefore, the Police can not be directed to investigate into the matter. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned trial Court, the petitioner has filed 6 Criminal Revision against the order passed by the learned trial Court before the learned revisional Court. On 12.06.2018, the Criminal Revision filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed. The learned revisional Court has held that the copy of the message which was sent by the respondents No. 1 to 9 through their mobile on the mobile phone of the petitioner has not been filed by him. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the learned trial Court as well as the revisional Court should have considered that from the allegation made in the complaint, prima facie offence under Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, is appears and the same is a cognizable offence and the Police can investigate the matter after recording FIR without the order of the magistrate. The petitioner has specifically alleged in his complaint that the respondents No. 1 to 9 have demanded dowry and in failure to fulfil their demand, they broken the engagement. The act of the respondents No. 1 to 9 have clearly spells about the offence under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Against which the learned Trial Court has said that from the allegation no offence is made out and the learned revisional Court has upheld the order of the learned trial Court, which is erroneous and the same are liable to be set-aside. The learned revisional Court have erred in considering that the copy of SMS message have not been filed by the petitioner and the case of the petitioner is based upon the evidence of Sadhna 7 Katare, daughter of the petitioner. They should have considered that the copy of SMS message have been filed before the learned trial Court and the same is very well available in the record. They should also have considered that from the document available on record, commission of cognizable offence is appears and the Court may direct for investigating in the matter. Against which, the learned trial Court has rejected the application which is erroneous and the order passed by the learned revisional Court is also erroneous and the same are liable to be set-aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 to 9 opposed the prayer of the instant petition and submits that the answering respondents have filed a complaint under Rule 4 of the Chhattisgarh Dowry Prohibition Rules, 2004 against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has failed to make out any case before this Court for exercise of powers vested under Section 482 of the CrPC and it is well settled principle of law that if there is any abuse of process of law and illegality committed by the trial Court then the power vested under Section 482 of the CrPC can be exercise, but in the present case, there is no case for exercise of power under Section 482 of the CrPC. The answering respondents hereby denies every singular statement, averment, allegation and contention contained in the petition as if the same were out of herein in extenso and seratium traverse, save and except those that may be expressly admitted hereinafter. Nothing contained in the return should be deemed to 8 be admitted by the answering respondents for lack of specific denial or otherwise. Thus, the instant petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.10/State opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and supports the impugned judgment and order dated 12.06.2018 passed in Criminal Revision No. H-40/2017 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), arising out of the order dated 23.11.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhatapara, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in an unregistered complaint case by which no direction has been issued to the Police authorities to register crime against the respondent No.1 to 9/accused, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner has been 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. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. 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 9 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 12.06.2018 passed in Criminal Revision No. H-40/2017, arising out of the order dated 23.11.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhatapara, District – Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.), by which the revision preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed, and there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, the instant petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits, liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. 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 Rahul dewangan