2025:CGHC:17577 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 638 of 2019 R.P. Tiwari S/o Late Shri M.P. Tiwari Aged About 64 Years Then Present D.S.P. (Ajk, Branch, Baikunthpur, District Korea) Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Ward No. 59, Hari Nagar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 3), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Vishnu Singh S/o Late Dhanush Dhaari Singh Aged About 63 Years R/o Champajhar, Patna, Police Station Patna, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No.1), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Pramila Singh W/o Vishnu Singh Aged About 42 Years R/o Champajhar, Patna, Police Station Patna, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No.2), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Korea, District Korea, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Sanjay Agarwal S/o Mahangi Lal Agarwal Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No. 8 Baikunthpur, Police Station Baikunthpur, Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh. (Director, Maa Vashno Assiciation Pvt. Ltd.) (Revisoner), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (s) (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Applicant : Shri BP Singh, and Shri VB Soni, Advocates For Respondent/State : Ms Vaishali Mahilong, PL For Respondent-4 : Shri Malay Shrivastava, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 16.04.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present Criminal Revision against the order dated 03-05-2019, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.10.06 15:43:23 +0530 Crr 638 of 2019 2 Baikunthpur (Koriya) CG in Criminal Revision No. 14/2019, whereby the Criminal Revision arising out of the order dated 28-01-2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baikunthpur, District Koriya, in an unregistered complaint case, was allowed, and the order passed by the learned trial court is set aside, further, it was directed to register the FIR, and to investigate the matter. 2. Subject matter in brief, is that Respondent No. 4, Sanjay Agrawal is an accused in Crime No. 131/2017, registered at Police Station-Baikunthpur, District Koriya, for the offence punishable under Sections 188, 294, 506, 323, 427, 447, 448, 467, 468 and 120-B of the IPC, and Section 3(2)(iv) and (v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (in short, “SC/ST Act”). He has made an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “CRPC”) before the learned Trial Court, alleging that in the said FIR of Crime No. 131/2017, under the Victim Compensation Scheme, the first installment of Rs. 25,000/- was obtained by Respondent No. 1, through a cheque dated 24-08-2017. Thereafter, to grab money from the government scheme, all the proposed accused persons conspired together and sent a proposal for disbursement of Rs.8,25,000/- to the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Baikunthpur, and got the amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- sanctioned and withdrawn by the Respondent No. 1. His complaint is also that there is no provision of disbursement of the said amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- before filing of the charge sheet in Crime No. 131/2017. When he is aware of the transaction, he filed a complaint with the police authorities on 12-11-2018, but no action was taken. Thereafter, an application was filed under Section 156(3) of the CRPC. Crr 638 of 2019 3 3. After calling the police report and hearing the Respondent No. 4/applicant, the application filed by him under Section 156(3) of CRPC was rejected by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 28-01-2019, holding that the applicant is not the victim as there is a loss of the government fund and no sufficient evidence is available to direct registration of the FIR. 4. The order dated 28-01-2019 passed by the learned Trial court was challenged by Respondent No. 4/applicant in Criminal Revision No. 14/2019 before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Baikunthpur, District Koriya. After hearing the parties, the revision is allowed, and the learned revisionary court directed for registration of the FIR and to investigate the matter, and also directed the concerned Judicial Magistrate to monitor the investigation. The said order dated 28-01-2019 is under challenge in the present Criminal Revision, by one of the proposed accused persons. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the learned Revisional Court exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the Police to register the FIR and to investigate the same. The Revisional court can only direct for reconsideration of the evidence available on record as provided under Section 398 of the CRPC, but it cannot direct for registration of the FIR and to investigate the same. The power to direct for registration of the FIR is vested with the learned trial court and the learned revisional court can only examine the legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned trial court. He would further submit that the applicant is Deputy Superintendent of Police, and he only recommended the proposal for grant of compensation as per the rules and circular of the State Government, and the amount was sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Department. He would also Crr 638 of 2019 4 submit that a committee headed by the District Collector, Koriya, had inquired into the matter and found that the present applicant bona fidely recommended the proposal for compensation, and he was protected under Section 22 of the SC/ST Act. There is no evidence that the applicant also received any benefit from the amount of compensation. It is only when respondent No. 4 is made an accused in Crime No. 131/2017 registered at P.S. Baikunthpur, the present complaint has been filed against the applicant, to satisfy his personal grudge. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned revisional court is liable to be set aside. 6. Learned Counsel for the State would support the impugned order passed by the learned Revisional Court. 7. Opposing the submissions of the applicant, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 would submit that the learned Revisional Court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction and directed for registration of the FIR. In para 16 of its order, the learned revisional court has considered the scope of interference; however, considering the status of the proposed accused persons and the involvement of the government officers, instead of directing reconsideration of the matter, they directed registration of FIR. The purpose would be to inquire into the matter. There is sufficient material in the case that the proposed accused persons have conspired together, and got the proposal approved for the disbursement of the compensation under the victim compensation scheme, for which he was not entitled. A huge government fund is misappropriated, for which an investigation is required. Another objection regarding maintainability of the revision has been raised by the respondents that the impugned order is passed by the learned Sessions Court in exercising the revisional jurisdiction, Crr 638 of 2019 5 and therefore, subsequent revision against the revisional order is barred. Therefore, there is no irregularity or illegality in the impugned order, and the criminal revision is liable to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 9. The main ground to challenge the impugned order by the present applicant is that the learned revisional court, instead of remitting the matter for reconsideration before the learned trial court as provided under Section 398 of the CRPC, directed itself to register the FIR and to investigate the matter, which cannot be done. Section 398 of the CRPC provided further steps of the revisional court after examining the legality and propriety of the impugned order, and if any illegality or irregularity is found in the order impugned, what orders the learned revisional court could pass. It is worth to quote here the provisions of Sections 397 and 398 of the CRPC, which reads as under:- Section 397 – Calling for records to exercise powers of revision The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding. Sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record. Crr 638 of 2019 6 Explanation – All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this Sub-Section and of section 398. The powers of revision conferred by Sub-Section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them. Section 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 of 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. 10. 10. The provisions of Section 398 of the CRPC are clear and unambiguous. The revisional court is empowered under Section 398 of the CRPC to direct the subordinate magistrate to make further inquiry into the complaint, which has been dismissed under Section 203 of the CRPC for want of sufficient evidence. While exercising the powers of revision, the learned revisional court directed the police authorities to register the FIR and to investigate the matter, for which Crr 638 of 2019 7 the revisional court is not competent, and thus, the learned revisional court has exceeded its jurisdiction vested in it. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the extent of revisionary powers in the case of “Rajendra Rajoriya v. Jagat Narain Thapak”, 2018 (17) SCC 234, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in para 13 that:- “13. The extent of the revisionary powers inter alia, is provided under Section 399 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. It is clear from the aforesaid provisions that Section 398 has to be read along with other Sections which are equally applicable to the revision petitions filed before the Sessions Court. Section 398 only deals with a distinct power to direct further inquiry, whereas Section 397 read with Section 399 and Section 401 confers power on the revisionary authority to examine correctness, legality or propriety of any findings, sentence or order. The powers of the revisionary court have to be cumulatively understood in consonance with Sections 398, 399 and 401 of Cr.P.C.” 12. On bare perusal of the provisions of Sections 397 and 398 of the CRPC, it is clear that the impugned order cannot be passed under Section 398 of the CRPC. It transpires that the Sessions Court has taken cognizance of the matter, assessed the offence and reached its own conclusion whether there is ground for proceeding with the complaint or not and further directed the police to register the offence and to investigate the matter, for which it has not been empowered. 13. In the present case, the learned trial Court, after appreciating the material produced before it, considered the report dated 09-06-2017 and 08-09-2017 submitted by the Dy Supdt. of Police, AJAK, Baikunthpur, District Koriya, in Crr 638 of 2019 8 which it was reported that the proposal for grant of compensation was forwarded for its approval and the Collector (Tribal Development), Koriya, approved the proposal. In the inquiry report dated 22-01-2019, submitted by the Committee constituted for inquiry, headed by the Collector, Koriya, it transpires that due to a bona fide mistake, the excess amount was paid to the victim and his act is protected by Section 22 of the SC/ST Act, 1989. Considering the entire material produced in the case, the learned Trial court dismissed the application of the complainant. In the Criminal Revision, filed by the complainant, the learned revisional Court, considered the merit of the case and has passed the order by which the impugned order dated 28-01-2019 is set aside and directed for registration of the FIR and to investigate the same. The learned revisional Court has passed the following order in para 16 of the order dated 03-05-2019:- “16. In view of the foregoing discussions, material available on record, and having regard to the rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 28.01.2019 being bad in law, is liable to be set aside. However, the question arises, as to what directions can be given in the facts and circumstances of the case. I could have remitted the matter back to the ld.Magistrate for passing appropriate order in view of aforesaid observations, however, noticing the fact that despite the offence coming into light and being in notice of all the State organs concerned, in the last more than a year’s span, no affirmative action has been taken, I deem it expedient in the interest of justice, and society to direct for investigation of this case by PS Baikunthpur, distt.Koriya. Needless to say, such investigation would be carried out upon registration of FIR, initially, against respondents no.1 and 3. Concerned Judicial Crr 638 of 2019 9 Magistrate is directed to monitor such investigation and would ensure early completion thereof.” 14. The revisional Court could not have taken cognizance as its own, rather in view of Section 398 of the CRPC matter should have been sent to the Magistrate to reconsider it and then take a decision as to whether cognizance should be taken or not. (See “2008 SCC Online Chh. 175, “Jai Prakash Pathak v. Surendra Gendley“) 15. With respect to the maintainability of the present criminal revision is concerned, it transpires that the complainant has filed an application under Section 156(3) of the CRPC for a direction to the police authority to register the FIR and to investigate the same. The application filed by the complainant was dismissed by the learned trial Court. Against the order of dismissal of the application, the complainant had filed a Criminal Revision before the learned Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Court allowed the Criminal Revision and directed the registration of the FIR, as well as the investigation of the matter by the police. The proposed accused has challenged the order passed by the Sessions Court. Though the present criminal revision is against the order passed in Criminal Revision by the learned Sessions Court, it is not by the same party. Section 397 (3) and 399 (3) of the CRPC specifically provided that the second revision by the same party is barred. It is not the position here, rather, the Criminal Revision is filed by the opposite party. 16. In the matter of “Ch. Raghunandan and Others v. State of Telangana” 2022 SCC Online TS 1368, the Telangana High Court has held that:- Crr 638 of 2019 10 “30. It was contended on behalf of the unofficial Respondents that a revision petition against an order passed in a revision petition is not maintainable. The said argument is misconceived and cannot be accepted by this Court. Section 397(3) makes it clear that a person choosing to file a revision either before the High Court or the Sessions Court cannot prefer another revision. The bar of non-maintainability of a second revision applies only to a person who has already availed the benefit of revision. In other words, if a person had already approached the Sessions Court under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., he cannot again approach the High Court invoking Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. However, a respondent who is aggrieved by the revisional order passed by the Sessions Court can file a revision petition before High Court. 31. A Full Bench of this Court in In Re : Puritipatti Jega Reddy18 held that the bar of filing another revision petition applies only to a person who had already filed a revision application. The relevant paragraph is extracted below: 9. The language of sub-sec. (3) of S. 397 contains no ambiguity. If any person has already chosen to file a revision before the High Court or to the Sessions Court under sub-sec. (1), the same person cannot prefer a further application to the other Court. To put it in other words. Sub- secs. (1) and (3) make it clear that person, aggrieved by any order or proceeding can seek remedy by way of a revision either before the High Court or the Sessions Court. Once he has availed himself of that remedy. he is precluded from approaching the other forum. It is equally manifest from the provisions that Sub-Sec (3) that this bar is limited to the same person who has already chosen to get either to the High Court or to the Sessions Court seeking a remedy and that it does not apply to the other parties or persons. Further the bar contained in sub- Crr 638 of 2019 11 sec.(3) is only against that person who has ready chosen the remedy either before the High Court or before the Sessions Judge. It is not permissible to extent the bar contained under a statute to other Persons or to other fields. It is well established that the bar against seeking a remedy in a Court of Law or against a Court of law rendering justice should be strictly construed. It is noteworthy that Sub-sec. (1) of Sec, 397 empowers the High Court or the Sessions Court to call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Court. That is to say, it can exercise this power of calling for and examining the record suo motu also. The language of Sub-sec. (3). strictly limited as it is to a person who has chosen to seek the remedy from one of the two courts, cannot be extended to the High Court exercising its powers conferred on it under the provision of the Code. It is patent that the bar contained in sub-sec. (3) is only against the person who has already chosen his remedy before one of the two forums. 32. To sum up, a revision against a revisional order is not maintainable if both such revision applications were filed by the same person. In the present case, the earlier revision petitions vide Criminal Revision Petition No. 19 of 2015 & Criminal Revision Petition No. 24 of 2015 were filed by the unofficial Respondents herein. The present revisions petitions are filed by the Petitioners who are aggrieved by the orders passed in Criminal Revision Petition No. 19 of 2015 & Criminal Revision Petition No. 24 of 2015. The revisional petitioners are different in the present case. Therefore, the present revision petitions are maintainable.” 17. Therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the aforesaid legal position, this Court is of the opinion that the learned revisional Court exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the police authorities to Crr 638 of 2019 12 register the FIR and to investigate the same. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision is allowed, and the impugned order dated 03-05-2019 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the revisional Court, and the learned revisional Court is directed to pass the order afresh in accordance with law, after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the parties, uninfluenced by any observations made by this Court for the purposes of deciding the criminal revision. 18. Records of the learned Trial Court and Revisional Court be sent back along with a copy of this order. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma