1 2025:CGHC:44653 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2703 of 2025 1. Bihari S/o Shri Brihaspat Aged About 37 Years 2. Heerachand S/o Shri Thukri Aged About 36 Years 3. Ajay S/o Shri Dhjaramraj Aged About 31 Years 4. Dharamraj S/o Late Nabalak Ram Aged About 55 Years All R/o Village Lodhi, Post Office- Maheva, Police Station Basantpur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) 2. Krishna Nishad Aged About 46 Years Occupation- Forest Inspector (Govt Servant), R/o Village Wadrafnagar, P.S.- Basantpur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) 3. Lalkeshwar Yadav Aged About 58 Years Occupation- Forest Constable (Govt Servant), R/o Village Wadrafnagar, Police Station Basantpur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) 4. Habiban W/o Late Tajuddin Aged About 65 Years 5. Shabana W/o Shri Mohd. Aabid Aged About 34 Years 6. Mahrunisha W/o Mohd. Shabid Aged About 35 Years 7. Shakila W/o Mohd Wahid Aged About 30 Years Respondent No.4 to 7 are Musalman Caste And R/o Village Harigawan, Post Office Pandri, Police Station Raghunath Nagar, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondents SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 For Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 2/9/2025 1. This petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) is preferred by petitioner against the order dated 28.6.2025 passed in Criminal Revision No.2/2025 by which learned Sessions Judge, Balrampur, set aside order of dismissal of complaint of respondents No.4 to 7 dated 26.10.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Wadrafnagar, restore the complaint to its original number and directed to proceed with the case on merits in accordance with law. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that complainants/respondent No.4 to 7 submitted complaint alleging offence under Sections 294, 506, 323, 354 of Indian Penal Code against petitioners with allegation that when the complainants tried to stop petitioners from carrying out tree plantation on their land, they abused them filthily, dragged them by catching their hairs, assaulted them by hands & legs, torn their clothes with bad intention and also threatened them for life. On filing such complaint, learned Magistrate called for a report from concerned police. The police, after investigation submitted report to the effect that allegations levelled by 3 complainant are false. In fact, it was the members of complainant party who armed with weapon like axe reached on spot where plantation work was going on, abused the petitioners and forest officials, uprooted the plants and thrown away and created obstruction in government work. Learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint vide order dated 14.11.2024, Annexure P-2, recording that the complaint does not disclose commission of offence alleged to have been committed by petitioners, warranting registration of complaint, there is land related dispute between the parties for which they can file civil suit. The said order is challenged by the complainant and vide order impugned, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision and restored the complaint by a one liner order saying that the Court is of opinion that there is sufficient prima facie evidence against the petitioners herein without disclosing the evidence. No reasoning based on documents/ material on record for setting summoning present petitioners has been given by learned Sessions Court. Since the order impugned passed by learned Sessions Judge does not assign reasoning bases on documents/material on record , therefore, the same is cryptic, needs to be set aside and that of learned Magistrate deserves to be restored. 3. On the other hand, learned State Counsel supported the impugned order. 4 4. I have heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the record. 5. Section 439 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 which is corresponding section of Section 398 of CrPC, says that the Sessions Judge on examining any record under Section 439 or otherwise, may direct the Magistrate to conduct such inquiry or further inquiry into any complaint which has been dismissed. The purport of aforesaid provision is that the Court can direct the Magistrate against an accused who is discharged to conduct further inquiry when the matter is brought in revision before the revisional Court. The direction for further enquiry does not mean that the Magistrate must take further evidence-oral or documentary, before passing further orders in the case. The term 'further enquiry' also means further consideration of the evidence brought before the Magistrate. 6. In case of Rajendra Bajoriya vs Jagat Narain Thapak and another, reported in (2018) 17 SCC 234, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus:- “12.A perusal of the aforesaid provisions portray that the revisionary power is exercised either by the Sessions Court or by the High Court and a dismissal of the complaint by the Magistrate under Section 203 of Cr.P.C may be assailed in a criminal revision under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. The ambit of revisional jurisdiction is well settled. Section 397 of Cr.P.C 5 empowers the Sessions Judge to call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any subordinate criminal court situate within its jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such subordinate Court.” 7. In case at hand, perusal of impugned order would show that learned Sessions Judge after adverting to allegations made in the complaint and statement of complainants recorded before registration, in which they made specific allegations against petitioners, found that there is prima facie material available to proceed against petitioners and accordingly, set aside the order of dismissal of complaint passed by learned Magistrate, restore the complaint with a direction to Magistrate to proceed in accordance with law. 8. In case of Birla Corporation Ltd. vs. Adventz Investments and Holdings Ltd and others, reported in (2019) 16 SCC 610 Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering as to when cognizance is to be taken, observed thus:- “29.Reiterating the mandatory requirement of application of mind in the process of taking cognizance, in Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 5 SCC 424, it was held as under:- “11.In Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Ltd. (2008) 2 SCC 492 (SCC p. 499, para 19) the expression 6 “cognizance” was explained by this Court as “it merely means ‘become aware of’ and when used with reference to a court or a Judge, it connotes ‘to take notice of judicially’. It indicates the point when a court or a Magistrate takes judicial notice of an offence with a view to initiating proceedings in respect of such offence said to have been committed by someone.” It is entirely a different thing from initiation of proceedings; rather it is the condition precedent to the initiation of proceedings by the Magistrate or the Judge. Cognizance is taken of cases and not of persons. Under Section 190 of the Code, it is the application of judicial mind to the averments in the complaint that constitutes cognizance. At this stage, the Magistrate has to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of enquiry. If there is sufficient ground for proceeding then the Magistrate is empowered for issuance of process under Section 204 of the Code.” 9. Perusal of contents of complaint filed before learned Magistrate and statements of complainant party clearly demonstrate that there are clear allegations against the 7 petitioners herein of abusing, assaulting, threatening and manhandling the complainants, who are ladies. Complainants have clearly alleged that petitioners herein had touched chest of respective complainants and torn their clothes. They thrashed them on ground, assaulted by legs and fists and dragged them by catching hold their hairs. 10. For the foregoing, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Sessions Judge has not committed any error in interfering with order of dismissal of complaint passed by learned Magistrate on 14.11.2024. So, at present this Court does not find any circumstance in the matter which requires any interference at this stage under the inherent powers of this Court enumerated under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 11.In view of above, this revision petition has no substance and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-