1 2025:CGHC:56935 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1233 of 2020 Anil Singh Thakur S/o Shri Jivan Singh Thakur, Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Harnachaka, Thana Lalpur District Mungeli, Presently Residing At Construction Colony, Tarbahar, Police Station Tarbahar, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Tarbahar, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Victim -A ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For Respondent No.1-State For Respondent No.2 : : Mr.Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Mr.Sandeep Yadav, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 24.11.2025 1. Heard Mr.Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the petitioner as BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR 2 well as Mr.Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr.Sandeep Yadav, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 CrPC with following prayer:- “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition filed by the petitioner and quash the FIR in connection with Crime No.135/2018 of Police Station Tarbahar, which has been registered on the basis of the false report lodged by the respondent no.2 for the offence U/s 376 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and also set-aside the order dated 03.03.2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur in Khatma/kariji no. 02/2018, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner before the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur on 06.11.2017, the petitioner disclosed that respondent no. 2, who is presently working at Galaxy Hero Bike Agency at Maharana Pratap Chowk, Bilaspur and permanently residing at Ramnagar Tikaripara, Takhatpur, used to call him on his mobile phone and disturb and harass him by sending messages on mobile number 7415668230 (old number) and presently on new number 9039594669. Respondent no. 2 was acquainted with the petitioner as she had met him while taking PSC coaching at Patel Tutorials for preparation for competitive examinations. She used 3 to say during mobile conversations that she needed his guidance with respect to the PSC coaching. Thereafter, respondent no. 2 met him, and she then began threatening him that he should marry her; otherwise, she would create obstacles in his marriage. The relatives of the petitioner had also advised respondent no. 2 and informed her father, directing her not to harass the petitioner further. However, respondent no. 2 did not heed her father’s words, attempted to underestimate the petitioner, and stated that she would harass him during his duty hours. She also stated that she would implicate the petitioner in a false case or commit suicide. On the basis of the written complaint dated 06.11.2017 (Annexure P/2) lodged before the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, the ASI of Police Station Tarbahar was directed to conduct an enquiry. 4. Further, complaints were made before the Additional Superintendent of Police on 10.11.2017 and 09.02.2018. On all three occasions, enquiry reports were submitted by the police of Police Station Tarbahar, but no case was made out against the petitioner on the basis of the reports submitted by the Station House Officer, Police Station Tarbahar, dated 26.11.2017, 19.12.2017, and 07.05.2018. 5. The report was lodged by respondent no. 2 on 05.05.2018. Therefore, it is apparent that respondent no. 2, in order to falsely implicate the petitioner, lodged the report belatedly, for which no explanation has been offered regarding the delay in lodging the 4 report at Police Station Tarbahar. It is therefore evident that the report was lodged only with the intent to illegally involve the petitioner in a false case, particularly because respondent no. 2 believed that, since the petitioner was working in the Railways, if she married him, she would be able to enjoy a better life. Thus, it appears that her sole objective in lodging the report was to mentally harass the petitioner, so that, if he were implicated in an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of a false and illegal report, his life would be destroyed and he would also lose his job. 6. For the purposes of approving the closure report, an application was filed along with the case diary by the Police Station Tarbahar, but learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur had passed an order on 03.03.2020 by disapproving the application filed by the Police Station Tarbahar for Khatma of Crime No.135/2028 of Police Station Tarbahar and directed for filing of charge-sheet. Hence, this petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while not accepting the closure report directed for filing of charge sheet, which is clearly contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the matter of Ramswaroop Soni v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. reported in AIR 2019 SC 3801. Hence, the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur deserves to be quashed. 5 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and supports the impugned order. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with petition. 10. The Supreme Court in the matter of Ramswaroop Soni (supra) observed as under:- “4. The law is well-settled that in case a final report is filed Under Section 173(2) Code of Criminal Procedure stating that no offence is made out against the Accused, any of the following courses can be adopted by the Magistrate: (a) He may accept the report which was filed by the police in which case the proceedings would stand closed. (b) He may not accept the report and may take cognizance in the matter on the basis of such final report which was presented by the police. (c) If he is not satisfied by the investigation so undertaken by the police, he may direct further investigation in the matter. 5. The law is further well-settled that the judicial discretion to be used by the Magistrate at such stage has to fall in either of the three aforesaid categories. 6. In the present matter, the magistrate has issued directions directing the police to file charge-sheet Under Section 326 and 294 Indian Penal Code and also the provision of Section 3(1) and 10 of the 6 Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Such a direction is wholly unsustainable. 7. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and remit the matter back to the file of CJM, Vidisha, M.P. for fresh consideration and to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 8. The appeal stands allowed in aforesaid terms.” 11. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusal of the impugned order dated 03.03.2020 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, and evaluation of the material placed on record, it is evident that learned Magistrate has acted beyond the scope of powers available under Section 173(2) of the CrPC. The law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramswaroop Soni (supra), clearly enumerates that upon receipt of a closure report, the Magistrate is confined to three courses of action—(i) accepting the report, (ii) rejecting the report and taking cognizance, or (iii) directing further investigation. The Magistrate cannot direct the police to file a charge-sheet. 12. In the present case, despite multiple enquiry reports exonerating the petitioner and despite the closure report submitted by the police, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate incorrectly proceeded to disapprove the closure report by directing filing of a charge-sheet, an action which stands in direct contravention of the law laid down 7 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramswaroop Soni (supra). The impugned order suffers from a jurisdictional error and cannot be sustained. 13. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 03.03.2020 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur in Crime No. 135/2018 is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur for fresh consideration of the closure report strictly in accordance with law and in light of the principles laid down in Ramswaroop Soni (supra). Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur shall pass a fresh order within two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Bablu