1 2025:CGHC:52231 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 137 of 2025 1 - Indrapal Singh Kanwar S/o Late Kheman Singh Kanwar Aged About 51 Years Caste Kanwar, R/o Village Purena, Police Station Bankimongra, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Vinod Batra Employee of A.C.B. Power Plant, Chakabuda, Police Station Bankimongra, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, Adv. For Respondent : Mr. Yashkaran Singh, Adv. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 27/10/2025 1 This appeal is preferred under Section 14(A)(1) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 against the judgment dated 05.09.2024 passed by learned Special Jude (Prevention of Atrocities Act), Korba, District - Korba (CG) in Special Case (SC & ST) (Filing No.) No.1347/2020 whereby the said Court has dismissed the complaint case of the HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.10.28 14:16:18 +0530 2 appellant filed under the provision of Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for want of prosecution, when the matter was fixed for evidence before registration of the complaint. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that the appellant approached before the learned Court of Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Korba and filed an application under the provisions of Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. along with a Complaint under the provisions of Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. for registration of the FIR on the offences punishable under Sections 426, 447, 294, 506(b) of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the accused/respondent. The matter of the appellant was filed as Special Case (SCST) Filing No. 1347/2020, and the said matter was fixed on 06.09.2022 for hearing of the case on admission after receipt of the police report. After hearing the argument of the appellant and perusing the police report, the learned Court has rejected the application of the petitioner filed under the provision of Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., but the complaint filed by the petitioner under the provision of Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. was directed to be listed on 22.11.2022 for examination of the witnesses of the complainant before registration of the case. Thereafter, the 3 matter was fixed several times for witnesses and ultimately on 05.09.2024 the matter was dismissed for want of prosecution as neither the complainant nor his counsel appeared on the said date. 3. Learned State counsel submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Court is illegal, erroneous and contrary to the law. He also submits that due to a bona fide mistake, the appellant could not appear before the learned Court when the matter was fixed, and therefore, non- appearance for the petitioner may be condoned, and kindly be pleased to restore the complaint case filed by the petitioner under the provisions of Section 200 of Cr.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and submits that the impugned order does not call for any interference. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of learned trial Court. 6. Looking to the order sheets of the trial Court, it is clear that on 17.11.2020, an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. were filed by the appellant before the Special Court (Atrocities). The Special Court called the police report and, after hearing both parties, dismissed the application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. on 06.09.2022 on the grounds that the 4 police investigation report stated that no cognizable offence was found. Subsequently, the trial court directed the appellant to adduce the pre-registration evidence under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.. However, despite 10-12 opportunities, the complainant/appellant failed to adduce pre-registration evidence, even the appellant had not secured his presence on 05.09.2024; therefore, the case was dismissed for want of prosecution on the said date, which does not appear to be illegal or arbitrary and does not warrant any interference. 7. Accordingly, the case is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu