1 2025:CGHC:39430 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2443 of 2025 Haricharan S/o Madhoram Aged About 44 Years R/o Vill. Katankdhi, Gram Panchayat Chote Gumada, Tehsil Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Dsp And T.I. Ajak, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate For the State : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Deputy Government Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 07/08/2025 1. This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the order dated 11.02.2020 whereby the Special Court (Atrocities) Raigarh has converted the application u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C., to a Complaint Case u/s 200 of the Cr.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed an application A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2025.08.15 08:34:36 +0530 2 under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., alleging that he being a tribal belonging to Kanwar caste, his land bearing Khasra No.9/2 admeasuring 3.835 hectares situated at village Katankdeeh, P.H. No.16, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh has been grabbed by TRN Energy Limited. The allegation in the application and the Police Report containing the statements of witnesses makes out a cognizable offence u/s 3(1)(f) & 3(1)(g) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471/120-B of IPC and under the penal provisions of Benami Transaction Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being a scheduled tribe his lands have been grabbed by a Private Company through the brokers/mediators, therefore, he filed application under section 156(3) of CrPC before the Special Court Raigarh seeking a direction to register the FIR, however, by impugned order dated 11.02.2020 the trial Court has directed to convert the application to complaint u/s 200/202 CrPC which cannot be sustained. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the order passed by the trial Court and submits pursuant to the direction to convert the application u/s 156(3) to a complaint under section 200/202 CrPC, the petitioner did not turn up to keep his witnesses present for recording evidence. 5. A perusal of the order dated 11.02.2020 shows that the trial Court recorded the fact that the complainant is not satisfied with the investigation report dated 12.10.2019 submitted by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ajaak, Raigarh and he wants further action in the complaint. Therefore, the trial Court has held that it would be appropriate to take further action under section 200 and 202 of CrPC and thus directed the complainant that before registration of complaint, under sections 200, 202 of CrPC, the complainant should appear in person on the next date for evidence and keep his witnesses present or witness summons should be 3 issued to witnesses of the complainant after paying the due summons within three days. 6. It is apparent on record that pursuant to the order dated 11.02.2020, on many occasions when the matter was taken up on 09.03.2020, 27.11.2020, 19.01.2021, 11.6.2021, 06.09.2021, 02.11.2021, 10.01.2022, 10.03.2022, 10.05.2022, 20.06.2022, 23.07.2022, 24.09.2022, 14.11.2022, 10.01.2023, 10.02.2023, 10.04.2023, the complainant was directed that before registration of complaint, u/s 200 and 202 CrPC, he should keep his witnesses present for recording evidence, however, despite series of opportunities the complainant did not show any interest for recording the evidence on his behalf. Under these circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioner as the orders sheets of the trial Court would show that he continuously failed to keep the witnesses present and record the evidence. 7. This court does not find any infirmity in the order dated 11.02.2020 passed by the trial court warranting interference in the instant petition. 8. Accordingly, the petition has no merits and is dismissed at the admission stage. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao