1 2025:CGHC:42785 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 228 of 2018 Prakash Nahta S/o Late Jairaj Nahta Aged About 58 Years R/o Gunderdehi, District Balod Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Gunderdehi, District Balod Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sabina Begam S/o Mohd. Ali, Aged About 27 Years R/o Ghudi Saloni, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No.2 : None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent No.1/State. None appears for the respondent No.2. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being aggrieved with the order dated 18.01.2018 RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 passed in MJC (Cr.) Case No. 5/2018 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District – Balod (C.G.). 3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 31.12.2014 at about 7:15 p.m. complainant Sabina Begam (respondent No. 2) lodged a report at Police Station Gunderdehi, that the petitioner tried to outrage her modesty at about 2:00 p.m. near bus stand, on this report an FIR No. 250/2014 under Sections 354 and 323 of the IPC was registered. On investigation it was found by the police that at 2:00 p.m. that the petitioner was present before the S.D.M. Balod and the report was false. The Station House OfÏcer Gunderdehi filed khariji (closure report) before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 25.09.2017. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate called the complainant (respondent No. 2) and investigating ofÏcer Sumesh Baghel and recorded their statements. The complainant supported her FIR, whereas the Station House OfÏcer stated that no such incident took place and FIR lodged by complainant was found to be false. But, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate did not reject the closure report (Crime No. 250/14) and ordered filing of charge-sheet after reinvestigation. The order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate is illegal and without jurisdiction. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though after the investigation a closure report was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and thereafter an objection was filed by the complainant of the case against the said closure report, and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the closure report, and further directed the Station House OfÏcer of the Police Station concerned for further 3 investigate the matter and submit the chargesheet before the competent Court. It is further argued that the order of the learned Magistrate for reinvestigation, he was not to direct for submission of a chargesheet, as he should have directed the Police to submit the Police Report in view of Section 173(2) of CrPC. 5. As per the OfÏce report dated 14.08.2025, the notice which was issued to the respondent No.2 has been served and the matter has been taken up, but neither the respondent No.2 nor any counsel has appeared on her behalf to object the present petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/State opposes the submission of the petitioner and supports the order dated 18.01.2018 passed in MJC (Cr.) Case No. 5/2018 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District – Balod (C.G.), and submits that there is no any illegality and infirmity in the same warranting interference of this Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival submissions made herein and gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 8. From the perusal of the records and submissions raised by the counsel for the petitioner, it transpires that though after the investigation a closure report was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and thereafter an objection was filed by the complainant of the case against the said closure report, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the closure report, and further directed the Station House OfÏcer of the Police Station concerned to 4 further investigate the case and submit the chargesheet before the competent Court, but the order of the learned Magistrate for further investigation, it was not correct to direct for submission of a chargesheet, as it could have been directed the Investigating OfÏcer to submit the Police Report in view of Section 173(2) of CrPC, if any, thus, the impugned order dated 18.01.2018 passed in MJC (Cr.) Case No. 5/2018 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District – Balod (C.G.), is modified to that extent, and the Investigating OfÏcer is directed to submit the Police Report, in view of Section 173(2) of CrPC before the competent Court, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order, if already not submitted. 9. Resultantly, this petition is disposed of. 10. OfÏce is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar