1 2025:CGHC:48429 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2935 of 2025 1 - Vimal Kumar Banjare S/o Kapoorchand Banjare, Aged About 77 Years Retired Development Extension Officer R/o Ward No. 02, Bagbahara, P.S. Bagbahara, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ...Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Uma Tiwari, Advocate. For State/Non-applicant : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Deputy Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 19-09-2025 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short “BNSS”), against the order dated 23-04-2018, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, in Criminal Revision No. H-16/2018, whereby the Criminal Revision filed by the petitioner is dismissed. 2. The subject matter, in brief, is that the petitioner had filed an application on 10-11-2017, before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund, for registration of the FIR against the accused persons and made an allegation that his minor daughter was abducted and they tried to perform her marriage. The learned trial court called a police report on the application of the petitioner in which the police reported that the daughter of the petitioner had gone to visit places with the permission of her mother and returned. It Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2025.09.22 18:32:09 +0530 2 has also been reported that the petitioner is residing separately from his wife and daughter, and in such a state of mind, he made a complaint. The learned trial court, after considering the police report, rejected the application of the petitioner on 11-12-2017. The petitioner had challenged the order dated 11- 12-2017 before the learned Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, in Criminal Revision No. H-16/2018, which is also dismissed vide order dated 23-04- 2018. After about 07 years, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the minor daughter of the petitioner was subjected to abduction, and that they performed her marriage. The police had submitted a false report with the collusion of the accused persons. The accused Suyash Chandrakar had abducted his minor daughter and forced her into marriage, and despite his report, the police have not taken any action on his report. Therefore, this court may allow this petition and direct the police authorities to investigate the matter and to take action against the accused persons. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes and submits that the learned trial court had called the police report, and the statement of the daughter and wife of the petitioner was recorded and based on their statement, the report was submitted before the learned trial court by the police. They have not stated any thing in their statement and have not disclosed commission of any offence. Therefore, the learned trial court rejected the application of the petitioner, and the Criminal Revision has also been dismissed. She would also submit that the present petition is filed about 07 years after the passing of the order by the learned revisional court, and there is a long and unexplained delay in the present petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 3 6. From the perusal of the documents annexed with the petition and the order impugned, it is revealed that the learned trial court had called the report from the concerned police station on the complaint made by the petitioner. In the process of inquiry, the petitioner refused to give his statement and also refused to sign the document, which is reflected on page 14 of the petition. The statement of the daughter of the petitioner and wife of the petitioner was also recorded during the inquiry, in which they also did not disclose the commission of any offence, which was also revealed from their statement annexed with the petition at pages No. 17 and 18. The police had submitted the report on 22-11-2017 before the learned trial court, and when commission of any offence was not found, the application of the petitioner was rejected. The learned Sessions Judge has also considered the documents available in the case and dismissed the criminal revision filed by the petitioner, vide order dated 23-04-2018. Considering the material produced by the petitioner and the consideration of the learned trial court as well as the revisional court, this court is of the opinion that they have rightly exercised their jurisdiction to reject the application and dismissed the criminal revision filed by the petitioner. 7. Furthermore, it transpires from the document Ex. P-3, which is a copy of the FIR of Crime No. 59 of 2020 registered at the police station Bagbahra, District Mahasamund, that the FIR states the petitioner reported an incident, leading to an FIR against Suyash Chandrakar, whom he previously accused. The FIR was lodged for offences under Sections 294, 323, and 506 of the IPC. The issue raised in the present petition pertains to the circumstances prior to the registration of FIR of Crime No. 59 of 2020, and the petitioner could have informed authorities about the earlier complaint/allegations when FIR Crime No. 59/2020 was initially registered. He has filed this petition after approximately seven years of the dismissal of the criminal revision and about five years after the registration of FIR Crime No. 59/2020 at the police station 4 Bagbahra, which appears to be an abuse of process of the Court. There is no explanation for such a long delay. 8. In view of the above, the petition lacks merit and is liable to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil