1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2906 of 2025 1 - Lakhan Lal Patel S/o Ram Singh Aged About 65 Years R/o- Village Bagledi P.S. Saja District- Bemetara (C.G.) 2 - Kumari Bai W/o Lakhan Lal Patel Aged About 60 Years R/o- Village Bagledi P.S. Saja District- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Santosh Kumar Patel S/o Narmada Singh Lodhi Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Bagledi P.S. Saja District- Bemetara (C.G.) 2 - Narmada Singh S/o Ram Singh Lodhi Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Bagledi P.S. Saja District- Bemetara (C.G.) 3 - Halkhu Sahu Posted As Patwari Village Bagledi Patwari Halka No. 13/4, P.S. Saja District- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order On Board 17/09/2025 1. Heard on Admission. 2. The present Cr.M.P. under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 09.03.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Saja, SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.09.18 10:16:53 +0530 2 Dist- Bemetara in unregistered Complaint Case of 2023 (Lakhan Lal Patel & Anr. Vs. Santosh Kumar Patel & Anr.) thereby the complaint case filed by the petitioners have been dismissed for want of prosecution and also against the order dated 26.06.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saja, Dist- Bemetara by which the application for restoration of the said complaint case was also rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have bona fide prosecuted their complaint case from 13.08.2019 against the proposed accused persons for the offence under Section 420, 468, 471, 406 and 409 of IPC and they were appearing in each date of hearing before the learned trial Court to prosecute their complaint case, however, on 09.03.2023, due to unavoidable reason, neither the petitioners nor their counsel could appear before the learned trial Court and then their complaint case has been dismissed for want of prosecution for a singular default. He would further submit that the complaint case yet to be registered by the learned trial Court and at the initial stage, it has been dismissed for want of prosecution. He would relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Azeem v. A. Venkatesh And Another reported in 2002 (7) SCC 726 and submits that the complaint for one singular default in appearance on the fixed date, dismissal of the said complaint case is improper, therefore, the said complaint case may be restored for its consideration. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. From perusal of the order sheets of the learned trial Court, it transpires from the ordersheets dated 13.08.2019 to 19.02.2020, the petitioners were regularly appeared, however, from the order sheets dated 06.03.2020 to 3 20.01.2023, it transpires that the petitioners have repeatedly taken time to produce their witnesses despite granting last opportunity to produce their witnesses the petitioners could not produce the same and ultimately remain absent on 09.08.2023 and on the said date, the learned trial Court has dismissed their complaint case. 6. Be that as it may, the fact remains that up to 20.01.2023, the adjournment was granted by the learned trial Court to produce the witnesses to the petitioners, however, on 09.03.2023, the complaint case filed by the petitioners have been dismissed for want of prosecution. Relying upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Azeem (Supra) and looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, that on a singular default for appearance by the petitioners, the complaint case has been dismissed for want of prosecution and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that one more opportunity is to be granted to the petitioners to pursue their case. Therefore, the unregistered complaint case of 2023 (Lakhan Lal Patel & Anr. Vs. Santosh Kumar Patel & Anr.) is restored subject to payment of cost of Rs. 3000/- which shall be deposited in the C.C.D. of the learned trial Court and the learned trial Court is directed to proceed further in accordance with law. The petitioners are further directed not to take unnecessary adjournment in the proceeding of the compliant case and to produce their witnesses on the date fixed by the learned trial Court for recording of their statement. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the present Cr.M.P. is allowed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sagrika