1 2025:CGHC:50873 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 394 of 2019 1 - Banke Bihari Shukla S/o Shri Krishna Bihari Shukla Aged About 69 Years By Occupation Advocate R/o Mohan Singh Ka Bada, Daula Ganj Gwalior M. P., District : Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Collector, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Nitin Dixit S/o Shri M. P. Dixit Aged About 39 Years By Occupation Upper Division Clerk, R/o House No. H 121, Kashiram Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh At Present Udc Nia Branch Maulishri Vihar Vip Road, Telli Bhandha, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Priya Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 : None, though served. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Ku mar Agrawal Order on Board 13/10/2025 1. The present criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 22-06-2018 passed by the learned Additional VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.10.14 18:58:14 +0530 2 Sessions Judge (Special Judge of Special Court for trial of CBI cases) Raipur, in Criminal Revision No. 123 of 2018. 2. The subject matter, in brief, is that, the petitioner was a proposed accused in the complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur for the offence under Section 500 of the IPC. The said complaint was filed on 24-10-2017. However, the learned trial court has not found any sufficient evidence to register the complaint case filed by the respondent No. 2 under Section 500 of the IPC and dismissed the complaint case vide order dated 06-03-2018. The said order dated 06-03-2025, passed by the learned trial Court was challenged by the respondent No. 2 before the learned Revisional Court in Criminal Revision No. 123 of 2018. The said criminal revision was allowed vide order dated 22-06-2018 and the learned trial Court was directed to proceed further with respect to the offence under Section 500 of the IPC, which is under challenge in the present criminal revision by the proposed accused. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the learned Revisional Court was not empowered to direct the learned trial Court to register the complaint case and to proceed with the trial of the case for the offence under Section 500 of the IPC in view of the provisions of Section 398 of the CRPC. He would also submit that before the learned Revisional Court the proposed accused has not been made as a party respondent and has not been heard, yet the revision filed by the complainant has been allowed. Therefore, the impugned order passed by learned Revisional Court is liable to be 3 set aside. He would rely upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “P. Sundarrajan and others v. R. Vidhya Sekar” 2006 (1) SCC (Cri) 345. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned orders. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 6. From perusal of the order passed by learned trial Court dated 06-03-2018, it transpires that the complaint case filed by the respondent No. 2 was dismissed by the learned trial Court for want of sufficient evidence and the learned trial Court has considered the provisions of Section 203 of CRPC that there is no sufficient evidence against the accused to register the complaint case and to proceed with the trial. 7. Undisputedly, the respondent No. 2 has filed criminal revision before the learned Revisional Court and the learned Revisional Court while exercising its power under Section 397 of CRPC has examined the legality and propriety of the order dated 06-03-2018, passed by learned trial Court. When the learned Revisional Court exercising its power under Section 397 of CRPC, they had the power under Section 398 of CRPC to allow or to dismiss the revision. However, if he allowed the revision, he ought to have directed the learned trial Court for further enquiry in the matter. Section 398 of CRPC (Section 4 439 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is necessary to reproduce here:- “398. Power to order inquiry.— On examining any record under section 397 or otherwise, the High Court or the Sessions Judge may direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate by himself or by any of the Magistrates subordinate to him to make, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate may himself make or direct any subordinate Magistrate to make, further inquiry into any complaint which has been dismissed under section 203 or sub-section (4) of section 204, or into the case of any person accused of an offence who has been discharged: Provided that no Court shall make any direction under this section for inquiry into the case of any person who has been discharged unless such person has had an opportunity of showing cause why such direction should not be made.” 8. Instead of remitting the matter back for further enquiry in the matter, the learned Revisional Court has directed the learned trial court to take necessary action for registration of the complaint under Section 500 of the IPC, which apparently beyond the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 397 of the CRPC. 9. Further, it transpires from the order (Annexure A-1) that, the proposed accused has not been made as a party respondent before the learned Revisional Court and has not been heard before passing any order by the Revisional Court. 10. In the matter of “P. Sundarrajan” (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, the order passed by the Revisional Court is unsustainable, when it has been heard without issuing notice to the respondent before it and without considering the defence available to him, proceeding to consider the material produced by the petitioner and directing the Magistrate to proceed with the complaint in 5 accordance with law. Therefore, on this ground also, the order passed by the learned Revisional Court appears to be erroneous exercise of its power under Section 397 of CRPC. 11. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22-06-2018, passed by learned Revisional Court (Annexure A-1) is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned Revisional Court to decide the revision afresh in accordance with law, keeping in view the provisions of Section 398 of CRPC and also in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “P. Sundarrajan” (supra). 12. With the aforesaid direction, the present revision petition is allowed. 13. The records of the trial Court as well as the Revisional Court be sent back along with a copy of this order. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved