1 2025:CGHC:21794 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Order Reserved on : 21.02.2025 Order Delivered on : 09.05.2025 CRMP No. 2886 of 2024 Omkar Dahariya S/o Shri Namdas Dahariya, Aged About 42 Years R/o House No. 211, Aadi Bhawan, Matoshri Colony, Jail Road Devri (K), Tahsil And District-Mungeli (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli,District-Mungeli,(C.G.) 2 - Smt. Sarita Bhardwaj, W/o Late Pradeep Bhaskar, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village - Lachhanpur, Post Office Tedhadhaura, Police Station Fasterpur, Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Pillai, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Karan Bahrani, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Saxena, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge C A V Order 1. This petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with the following reliefs:- 2 (i) to cal for records of Criminal Revision No. 02 of 2024(Omkar Dahariya Vs. State of Chhattisgarh) from the learned court of First Additional Sessions Judge Mungeli, District Mungeli and the record of Criminal Case no. 3783 of 2022 (State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Dilip and others) pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. (ii) to allow the petition thereby setting aside the impugned order dated 07.08.2024 (Annexure A/5) passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh in Criminal Revision No. 02/2024 (Omkar Dahariya Vs. State of Chhattisgarh) and discharge the petitioner, in the interest of justice. (iii) to grant any other relief deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Relevant facts of the case are that based on undated complaint, FIR was lodged against the present petitioner as well as 12 other accused persons on 07.11.2019 by the Police Station -City Kotwali, Mungeli in Crime No.672/2019 for offences punishable under Sections 294, 506, 34 of IPC and Section 3, 4 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Debtors Act, 1937. Later on, Sections 147 and 509 of IPC were added and Section 34 of IPC was deleted. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet/final report has been filed on 28.11.2022, copy of which, is annexed as Annexure A-1. 3. The petitioner preferred an application under Section 239 of the Cr.PC before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungeli, for discharging of the aforesaid charges/offences, which was rejected 3 vide order dated 23.11.2023 (Annexure A-4). 4. Aggrieved by said rejection order, the revision was preferred by the petitioner before the learned 1st ADJ, Mungeli, District Mungeli, which was registered as Criminal Revision No.02/2024, however, learned Revisional Court without examining the records of the case in proper manner has dismissed/rejected the revision vide order dated 07.08.2024 (Annexure e A/5). Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned orders (Annexures A-4 & A-5) are illegal and contrary to the law as learned trial Court as well as the Revisional Court have failed to consider the records of the case in its true perspective. Complainant in connivance with the Police Officials have succeeded in setting criminal law into motion for an ulterior motive to arm twist and built pressure on the petitioner as well as other accused persons so that the money borrowed by complainant as well as her husband from the petitioner and other accused person remain with her and the cases instituted u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act comes to an end. The police had not investigated the matter in its true perspective ant prepared the final report on the selective documents. The documents which have been filed with the final report also contains copy of agreement dated 23.11.2019, few days after FIR dated 07.11.2019, entered into between co-accused Rohit Shukla as well as three other co-accused and the complainant. Apparently, the motive of informant was to arm twist the accused persons in order to get rid of cases filed against her by the accused persons. Informant in her statement recorded under 4 Section 164 of Cr.PC on 03.12.2019 stated that after lodging of FIR, Sanjeev Gaurha, Rohit Shukla, Vijay Soni, Vikas Soni and Ashok Sahu had withdrawn the cases instituted against her under Section 138 of the NIA Act. From the agreements and 164 statement of informant, it would be clear that a false and malicious complaint has been made against the petitioner with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. Copy of one of the agreement dated 23.11.2019 and statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C are annexed as Annexures A/2 & Annexure A/3. While considering the application of petitioner filed under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C, trial Court was required to see whether a strong suspicion against the petitioner arose or not based on material/evidence available, however, trial Court failed to consider the same and wrongly rejected the application of the petitioner vide order dated 23.11.2023, which was affirmed by the Revisional Court vide impugned order dated 07.08.2024, without assigning any cogent reason. Hence, he prayed that present petition may be allowed and impugned orders (Annexure A-4 & A/5) be set aside. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the decisions of hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Salib Aslia Shalu alias Salim Vs. State of U.P and others reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 947; Ramprakash Chada Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2024 SSC Online SC 1709. 6. Learned State Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that in the present 5 case, final report/charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner, so the matter is subjudiced and under consideration before the trial Court, who will decide as to whether the allegations levelled against the petitioner is true or not, so at this stage, it cannot be said that there is no material to prosecute the petitioner. Moreover, there is enough material in order to establish the charges levelled against the petitioners. The petitioner has an efficacious and alternative remedy to defend his case before the learned trial Court at the time of recording of evidence, however, without availing such remedy, the petitioner has directly filed this petition before this Court seeking pre-trial finding, which is not tenable and liable to be dismissed. The answering respondent has conducted the investigation strictly in accordance with law and filed charge sheet alongwith the material/evidence, which prima-facie establishprove the guilt of the petitioner for commission of alleged offence/crime. Learned trial Court after considering the facts and evidence/material available has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner and thereafter same was also affirmed/confirmed by the learned Revisional Court. The instant petition deserves to be dismissed being baseless and devoid of merits. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material/evidence available and also gone through the impugned order. 8. It is pertinent to mention here that in this case final report/charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner, matter is subjudiced before the trial Court and one Sarita Bhardwaj was examined as PW-1. 6 9. Considering facts of the case, pleadings made in the petition, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, particularly the the fact evidence before the trial Court is continuing and the petitioner has an efficacious and alternative remedy to defend his case before the trial Court at the time of recording of evidence, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition at this stage. 10. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed. However, petitioner will be at liberty raised the ground before the trial Court concerned as raised before this Court. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J.