1 2025:CGHC:26779 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3068 of 2024 1 - Tek Ram Verma S/o Late Ramadheen Verma Aged About 63 Years R/o Dolphin Plaza Mowa Daldalsiwani Thana Pandari Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. --- Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Anti Corruption Bureau Raipur, C.G. --- Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 23.06.2025 1 Heard. 2 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 08.10.2024 passed in Special Criminal Case (Under PC Act) No. 01/2024 by the Learned Special Judge (PC Act) Dhamtari (C.G.) whereby the learned judge has rejected the application of petitioner filed under Sections 227, 228 and 239 of Cr.P.C. 1973. Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.06.24 13:51:22 +0530 2 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the confidential information of the crime named in the case by some other accused person and in FIR 0/2016 and FIR No. 01/2016 and search warrant and other legal documents, the name of the petitioner is not mentioned, but the name of some other accused person. The investigating officer used someone else's crime against the petitioner and illegally issued a notice to an innocent person. There is no legal evidence against the petitioner in the case, so that prima facie allegation of crime under the sections of this case can be made against the petitioner, Tekram Verma. He further submits that despite rejection of the application filed under Section 227, 228 and 239 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner, charges have not been framed, and therefore, he submits that this case may be disposed of by directing the trial Court to heard the petitioner on this point before framing of charges against him. 4 Learned State counsel opposes the same and supported the impugned order. 5 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the limited prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner, the trial Court is directed that before framing charges against the petitioner, the petitioner shall be heard on that point also. 6 Accordingly, with the aforesaid direction, the CRMP is disposed of at the stage of admission. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu