1 2025:CGHC:2316 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2575 of 2018 Manibhushan Gupta S/o Late G. P. Gupta, Aged About 59 Years, R/o D-5/327 Tagore Nagar, Police Station New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil, and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, ... Petitioner versus Hemlal Sahu S/o Late Shri R. A. Sahu, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Village Doma Tamasivani, Police Station Rakhi, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Tarun Dansena, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Manish Upadhyay, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Tarun Dansena, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Manish Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Rohit Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of CrPC for being aggrieved by the order dated 10.10.2018 passed in Cr. Revision No. 359/2018 by the Court of 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.), whereby the learned Judge has afÏrmed the order dated 08.06.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.) PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.01.17 11:09:45 +0530 2 in an unregistered complaint case by which the learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint of petitioner. 3. The prosecution story, in short, is that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was working as Sub-Forest OfÏcer in the Forest Department and doing his work honestly. The respondent who is a member of political party had given a false complaint against the petitioner in his department also to State Government, Central Government including the Prime Minister. The respondent by making false complaint against the petitioner, harassed the petitioner and thus, the goodwill of the petitioner had also been affected due to the false complaint of the respondent. The respondent on 25.11.2017 had given a false complaint alleging that the petitioner is engaged in corruption and having irrational assets and had also made complaint making false allegation that petitioner was threatening the respondent for the said complaint. Upon the complaint of the respondent, enquiry has been conducted by the department in that enquiry respondent never appeared which clearly shows that respondent by an ulterior motive wanted to harass and blackmail the petitioner. Due to the false complaint of the respondent, complaint case has been filed by the petitioner before the learned J.M.F.C. Raipur under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. read with section 500 of I.P.C. for convicting the respondent for defamation and giving compensation amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- for mental torture and harassment of petitioner. The said unregistered complaint case has been dismissed by the learned trial Court on 08.06.2018. Thereafter, revision petition filed by the petitioner before the learned 6th Upper Session Judge, Raipur had also been rejected on 10.10.2018. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned 3 Trial Court by rejecting the complaint case of the petitioner had overlooked the evidence on record and thus, the order passed by the learned Trial Court being perverse, illegal, unlawful, and is liable to be set-aside. The learned Revisional Court applying different view had also rejected the case of the petitioner which is also unlawful, perverse and thus, liable to be set-aside. By false complaint of the respondent, definitely the goodwill of the petitioner has been affected and thus, respondent is liable to be prosecute for defamation under Section 500 of the IPC. Due to false complaint of the respondent, the mental level of the petitioner has been affected and thus, the liability of the respondent arises. The learned Subordinate Courts without appreciating the evidence and documents produced by the petitioner had passed the impugned order which is liable to be set- aside and the orders of both the Courts deserve to be set-aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and supports the impugned judgment and order dated 10.10.2018 passed in Cr. Revison No. 359/2018 by the Court of 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.), whereby the learned Judge has afÏrmed the order dated 08.06.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.) in an unregistered complaint case by which the learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint of petitioner, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 4 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the judgments/orders of the trial Court as well as the revisional Court, it is clear that after considering all the material facts and after applying mind the order dated 10.10.2018 passed in Cr. Revison No. 359/2018 by the Court of 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.), the learned Judge has afÏrmed the order dated 08.06.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.) in an unregistered complaint case by which the learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint of the petitioner and the impugned order passed by the learned revisional Court does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error which may call interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits, liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti