1 2025:CGHC:14827 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1103 of 2025 1 - Sanjay Agrawal S/o Mahangi Lal Agrawal Aged About 54 Years R/o Main Road, Baikunthpur (Schoolpara), Baikunthpur, Police Station- Baikunthpur, District- Koriya (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Seema Agrawal W/o Sanjay Agrawal Aged About 52 Years R/o Main Road, Baikunthpur (Schoolpara), Baikunthpur, Police Station- Baikunthpur, District- Koriya (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Dheerandra Patel S/o Kansiram Patel Aged About 40 Years Occupation- Service, Police Department, Additional Superintendent Of Police, District- South Baster Kanker (C.G.) Presently Posted Additional Superintendent Of Police, Gariyaband, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) ---complainants ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate For complainant No.1 : None --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Order on Board 27.03.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, being aggrieved with the order dated 03.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Bhanupratapur, District South Baster Kanker (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No. 08/2023, arising out of order dated 07.08.2023 passed in Criminal 2 Complaint Case No. 808/2022 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pakanjur, District South Bastar Kanker (C.G.) and charge framed under Section 500, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioners are the accused and the complainant was the complainant before the trial court. The complainant has filed a complaint Under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the commission of offence which is punishable Under Section 120-B, 499, 500 of the Indian Penal Code alleging inter alia that the complainant was appointed through Public Service Commission in the Police Department. The petitioner Sanjay Agrawal was an influential person and a white color criminal of the society. Accused Sanjay Agrawal targeted the illiterate and poor persons of the society and taking the advantage of Loopholes of the administration and law, the Sanjay Agrawal will act accordingly. The complainant has been posted in the year, 2019 at Deputy Superintendent of Police, Baikunthpur. During the posting, the complainant has received lots of compliant against Sanjay Agrawal in which the complainant investigated and has submitted the report within the time limit. In one of the case, it was found that the accused Sanjay Agarwal has committed a cognizable offence, therefore, the offence was registered and the petitioner accused has been arrested. Being aggrieved with the working of the complainant, the accused Sanjay Agrawal has submitted false report and complaint against the complainant to the High Police Officer, M.L.A. and Ministers and has filed the Writ Petition (Cr.) No.283/2021 along with the false complaint against the complainant. The false complaint was published by the accused no.3 Ravi Singh in the daily news paper 05/10/2021, 09/11/2021, 10/11/2021 on and 17/11/2021. The news was also circulated in the web portal and web site. Form the 3 conducted of the accused, the image and reputation of the complainant has been tarnished and maline by the accused in the society as the complainant is a member of Police Department, therefore, the complainant has filed the instant complaint against the accused persons. The trial Court after recording the statement of the complainant and witnesses of the complainant, has registered the complaint of the complainant and has issued the summons to the accused persons. On 07.08.2023 after hearing the complainant and the accused persons, the trial Court has framed the charges against the accused persons for the commission of offence which is punishable under Section 500, 120-B of the IPC. Being aggrieved by framing of the charge, the accused Sanjay Agrawal and Smt. Seema Agrawal has preferred the criminal revision before the Session Court, Bhanupratappur, which was dismissed by the Additional Session Judge, Bhanupratappur, District South Bastar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Order dated 03/12/2024 and framing of the charge against the petitioners is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case because a bare perusal of the compliant of the complainant reveals that the entire act which was alleged by the complainant in the compliant was at Baikunthput and therefore, the court at Bhanupratappur is not having any jurisdiction. The Additional Session Judge ought to have seen that the prima facie complaint of the complainant is not within the territorial jurisdiction of Bhanupratappur, District- South Baster. The allegation which was levelled against the accused by the complainant is not come within the purview of the provisions of Section 499, 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The First Additional Session Judge, Bhanupratappur District South Baster has not 4 considered the merits of the case while deciding the revision of the petitioners. The finding of the Additional Session Judge that there is no provision for giving hearing to the accused before the framing of the charge is perverse and illegal. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order dated 03.12.2024 may be set aside. 4. In Support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishore Balkrishna Nand Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. Reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 602. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submission made hereinabove and also perused the documents annexed with this petition. 6. On perusal of the records, it appears that the news has been published by the petitioners-accused in Danik News Paper “Ghatati- Ghatna” on 05.10.2021, 09.11.2021, 10.11.2021 and 17.11.2021 and it has also been published on web portal and website “www.ghatatighatana.com. Thus, news is circulated in all the State of Chhattisgarh and defamation complainant can be filed at any place. 7. As regard the judgment i.e. Kishore Balkrishna Nand (supra) relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner to extent that if a person files a bona fide complaint before the competent authority, then in such case, the question of defamation does not arise. However in the present case, petitioner has not only filed complaint but also published news against him in the news paper as well as web portal. Thus, the facts of the present 5 case are different from judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the finding recorded by the learned Session Court and the material available of the record, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Session Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order in which interference of this Court is not required under Section 528 of the BNSS., 9. Accordingly, the present petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti