1 2025:CGHC:51505 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 485 of 2019 1 - Brijlal Sahu S/o Late Shri Parsadiram Sahu, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Village - Dhekuna, P.S. Simga, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Manju Sahu W/o Shri Rameshwar Sahu, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Clubpara, Ward No. 26, P.S. City Kotwali, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Dhaneshwari Sahu W/o Shri Lalit Sahu, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village - Tumgaon, P.S. Tumgaon, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 4 - Raju @ Manish Sahu S/o Shri Netram Sahu, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village - Dhekuna, P.S. Simga, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 5 - Shivprasad Sahu S/o Late Shri Madho Sahu, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Village - Dhekuna, P.S. Simga, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 6 - Suman Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Manikram Sahu, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village - Khokhali, P.S. Bhatapara Gramin, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 7 - Jitendra Sahu S/o Shri Ramkhilawan Sahu, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Quarter No. 1/19, Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University Campus, P.S. Tatibandh, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners (Accused persons) Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2025.10.29 12:04:48 +0530 2 versus 1 - Manharan Sahu S/o Shri Sukhnandan Sahu, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Village - Dhekuna, P.S. Simga, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgrh. District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Complainant) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 15-10-2025 1. The present CRMP has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the impugned order dated 14-12-2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Bhatapara, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara in Criminal Revision No.H-15/2018 whereby the criminal revision filed by the petitioners against the order dated 02-07-2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Simga in Criminal Case No.239/2018 has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioners are accused persons in the complaint case filed by the respondent under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Simga for the offence under Section 120B, 195, 211 and 500 of the IPC. The complaint case was registered on 02-07-2018 for the offence under Section 500 of the IPC and summons were issued to the accused persons/petitioners. The order of registration of the complaint case dated 02-07-2018 was challenged by the petitioners by filing criminal revision before the Additional Sessions Judge Bhatapara which has also been dismissed vide order dated 14-12-2018 against which present CRMP has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that initially in the year 2013 the complainant had filed the complaint case against the petitioners for the same prosecution of the incident, but the said complaint case was dismissed 3 vide order dated 19-09-2013. Thereafter, the criminal revision filed by the complainant against the order dated 19-09-2013 was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Bhatapara vide its order dated 18-03- 2016 passed in Criminal Revision No. H-10/2015, thereafter the complainant had again filed another complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. for the offence of Section 120B, 195, 211 and 500 of the IPC on 31-10-2017 suppressing the earlier rejection of his complaint case. The subsequent complaint case filed by the respondent/complainant is based on the same incident and the same allegation which was the subject matter of the earlier complaint also. There is no sufficient ingredients of the offence of Section 500 of the IPC in the complaint of the complainant. The allegation levelled by the complainant that on 06-08-2011 the daughter of the petitioner No.1 was kidnapped and he lodged a report to the police on which the FIR was registered and the complainant was detained by the police for about 4 days, subsequently, the report made by petitioner No.1 was found false and the police has submitted closure report in Crime No.205/2011 registered at P.S. Simga for the offence under Section 365 of the IPC. It was also alleged that since the matter was published in newspapers and ultimately the closure report was filed by the police the complainant was defamed in the society and community and suffered by his defamation. He would further submit that when the daughter of the petitioner No.1 was missing and he received inputs of involvement of the complainant in the offence of kidnapping of his daughter he made the report to police and exercised its legal remedy against the offence committed against his daughter. The police may have filed the closure report in the report made by him, that itself would not be a defamation to any person because the petitioners were availing the remedy available to them under the law for the offence committed against daughter of petitioner No.1. Yet, the learned trial Court has registered the complaint case under Section 500 of the IPC ignoring the dismissal of the earlier 4 complaint on the same set of facts. From the entire material produced in the complaint case, no offence of Section 500 of the IPC is prima facie made out to register the complaint case against the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned order dated 02-07-2018 passed by the learned trial Court and the order dated 14-12-2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Bhatapara are liable to be set aside and the proceedings of the complaint case may be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant vehemently opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and has submitted that there exist prima facie evidence with respect to the offence of Section 500 of the IPC. The complainant was defamed in the society and community by the act of the petitioners. They have lodged the report against him in which the police have found the report as false and submitted the closure report and there no commission of any offfence was found by the police. Dragging the complainant in a false and lodging of false report against him in which he was detained by the police in custody for about 4 days and publication of news in newspapers would certainly defame him in the community and society and the report was ultimately found to be false. He would further submit that when the closure report was approved by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 24-06-2017 the respondent/complainant has filed his complaint case under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. on 31-10-2017. From the contents of the complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. there is prima facie sufficient ingredients of the offence under Section 500 of the IPC and the learned trial Court has rightly considered the evidence available on record and registered the complaint case under Section 500 of the IPC, there is concurrent finding of facts by the learned trial Court as well as appellate Court which cannot be disturbed in the present petition while invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, there is no merits in the petition and the same is 5 liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 6. The genesis of the complaint is that, from the report made by the petitioner No.1 at P.S. Simga on 06-08-2011 that his daughter was kidnapped, the offence of Crime No.205/2011 for the offence under Section 365 of the IPC was registered at P.S. Simga in which the complainant/respondent was interrogated by the police and he was detained for about 4 days. The matter was reported in newspapers and ultimately the report of kidnapping of the daughter of petitioner No.1 was found false and closure report was submitted by the police. Although in the complaint case filed by the respondent/complainant on 31-10-2017 there is no mention about filing and dismissal of the earlier complaint made in the year 2013, but the petitioners have filed the documents with respect to the complaint case which was earlier filed by the respondent/complainant. From the order dated 19-09-2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Simga, District Raipur it transpires that on the same set of facts the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint case against the petitioners which was dismissed at the stage of registration. The criminal revision filed by the respondent/complainant against the order dated 19-09-2013 was also dismissed by the revisional Court vide its order dated 18-03-2016. Although, the revisional court has dismissed the revision by saying that the closure report submitted by the police was not accepted by the Magistrate till date and in absence thereof there is no ground to prosecute the petitioners for commission of the offence of defamation. However, the respondent/complainant has not challenged the said order dated 18-03-2016, dismissal of his complaint case filed against the petitioners. It is alleged that the closure report submitted by the police was accepted by the Magistrate on 24-06-2017. 7. It transpires from the order dated 18-03-2016 passed by the learned 6 Additional Sessions Judge Bhatapara that the victim/daughter of the petitioner No.1 had made allegation that the complainant/respondent and other unknown persons had kidnapped her, but in the investigation it was found by the police that the complainant was not involved in any incident of kidnapping. There may be so many reasons that the police authorities did not find any sufficient evidence to proceed with the report of the petitioners with respect to kidnapping of daughter of petitioner No.1 and filed the closure report before the Magistrate. However, in view of Exception 8 of Section 499 of the IPC the act of the petitioners does not satisfy the requirement of the offence of defamation. The Eighth Exception of Section 499 of the IPC reads as under:- "Eighth Exception ─ Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person ─ it is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject- matter of accusation." 8. When the daughter of petitioner No.1 was kidnapped he made report to the police on which initially the FIR was registered and statement of the victim was recorded who also supported that the respondent/complainant had kidnapped her, however, after other evidences and statements the police has considered that there is no sufficient evidence to file charge sheet against the complainant/respondent in that case and filed closure report before the Magistrate which was ultimately accepted on 24-06-2017. The petitioners have bonafidely accusing the complainant in the offence of Crime No.205/2011 and have made a report to the police authorities against kidnapping of daughter of petitioner No.1 and the act of the petitioners definitely comes under eighth exception of Section 499 of the IPC. Further, the offence of Section 500 provides punishment of simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both. The alleged 7 offence of defamation under Section 500 of the IPC is alleged to have committed in the year 2011 when the report has been lodged by petitioner No.1 with respect to kidnapping of his daughter and the same was published in the newspapers. However, the police has considered the said report to be false report and proceeded for closure report. For the alleged offence of the year 2011 the complaint has been filed in the year 2017. If the earlier complaint and closure report would keep aside, the alleged offence is of the year 2011 and the present complaint has been filed in the year 2017. Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. bars to take cognizance after lapse of period of limitation which reads as under:- “468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation— (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court, shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. (2) The period of limitation shall be— (a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only; (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. (3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment. 9. Section 469 of the Cr.P.C. provides commencement of the period of limitation and Section 469 (1) (a) provides that the period of limitation, in relation to an offender, shall commence on the date of offence. When the maximum sentence provided for the offfence of Section 500 of the IPC is of two years, the limitation for taking cognizance of the offence should not exceeds of three years from the date of offence as provided under Section 468(2)(c) of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is barred by limitation also. 10. In view of the aforesaid consideration, it is very difficult for this Court to affirm the orders passed by the learned trial Court dated 02-07-2018 and the order 8 dated 14-12-2018 passed by the learned revisional Court. There is no sufficient material with respect to the offence under Section 500 of the IPC in the case to register complaint case against the petitioners and prosecute them for the said offence. Accordingly, the present CRMP is allowed and the order dated 02-07-2018 passed by the learned trial Court in Criminal Case No.239/2018 and the order dated 14-12-2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Bhatapara, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara in Criminal Revision No.H-15/2018 are set aside and the proceeding of Criminal Complaint Case No.239/2018 against the petitioners is quashed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil