1 2025:CGHC:55803 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3466 of 2025 Anish Sainik S/o Rajesh Sainik Aged About 32 Years R/o G.A.D. Colony, Quarter No. 11, Rudri, Tahsil And District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Jansingh Dhruw S/o Latkhor Dhruw Aged About 55 Years R/o Quarter No. G-17, Rudri Tahsil And District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Laxmi Dhruw W/o Jansingh Dhruw Aged About 45 Years R/o Quarter No. G-17, Rudri Tahsil And District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 3 - Vinay Kumar Parmar Aged About 33 Years Inspector, The Then Posted As Thana Incharge Rudri Tahsil And District- Dhamtari (C.G.) At Present Posted As Inspector Police Station Ghumka District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4 - Sarika Vaidy Aged About 47 Years The Then Posted As Deputy Superintendent Of Police, I.L.U.C.A.W. Office Of Superintendent Of Police, Dhamtari District- Dhamtari (C.G.) At Present Posted At Mahila Cell Control Room Mahasamund Tahsil And District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 5 - Ragini Mishra (Tiwari) Aged About 31 Years Deputy Superintendent Of Police Adim Jati Kalyan Dhamtari Tahsil And District- Dhamtari (C.G.) R/o B- 5 Amaltaspuram Dhamtari, Tahsil And District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from the CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 17/11/2025 2 1. The matter is heard finally. 2. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 being aggrieved by the order dated 09.10.2025 passed in Criminal Revision Case No.43/2024 by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhamtari (C.G.) (Annexure P-1), arising out of order dated 12.08.2024 passed in unregistered complaint case by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) (Annexure P-2). 3. Brief facts of this case are that the petitioner filed complaint case under Section 500 of I.P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari, stating therein that the petitioner as well as respondents no. 1 & 2 are living in G.A.D. Colony, Rudri and at the relevant point of time, the respondent no. 1 was posted as Assistant Grade-2 at Collectorate Office, Dhamtari and the respondent no. 2 was posted as Sub-Inspector in the Office of Superintendent of Police, Dhamtari, respondent no. 3 was posted as Thana Incharge, Police Station, Rudri, respondent no. 4 was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dhamtari and respondent No. 5 was posted as Deputy Superintedent of Police, Adim Jati Kalyan, Dhamtari. 4. On 15.12.2021 the respondent no. 1 lodged false and fabricated complaint before the Police Station, Rudri, alleging therein that the petitioner has followed his minor daughter, abused her with filthy language and threatened her to kill her. 3 5. On the basis of said complaint, the offence U/s 294, 506, 354 (D), 509 of IPC, Section 11 (iv), 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va), 3(a)(va) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were registered against the petitioner and the petitioner was arrested on 16.12.2021 and sent to jail. 6. The charge sheet was filed against the petitioner before the Additional Sessions Judge F.T.S.C. (POCSO), Dhamtari 05.02.2022 and the Special Criminal Case (POCSO) on No. 11/2022 was registered against the petitioner and after completion of trial, vide judgment dated 29.09.2023 the learned trial Court has acquitted the petitioner from the aforesaid offences. While passing the judgment of acquittal, the learned Special Court has specifically observed in paragraph no. 28 & 30 that the evidence of victim and her father are not reliable and trustworthy and the prosecution has failed to prove the offences against the petitioner. 7. Thus from above, the respondent no. 1 & 2 at the instance of their minor daughter and further with the collusion of respondents no. 3 to 5, have falsely implicated and prosecuted the petitioner in criminal case by lodging false and fabricated FIR No. 96/2021, due to which, the petitioner was arrested by Police of Police Station, Rudri on 16.12.2022 and sent to jail, thus the petitioner was remained in jail from 16.12.2021 to 09.11.2022 and due to detention of petitioner in jail, his dignity and reputation have been defamed. Due to false implication and detention of 4 petitioner in jail, his relatives and nearby vicinities are seeing petitioner with bed eye and by treating the petitioner as criminal person and thereby the dignity, honesty and reputation of petitioner in society has been damaged, due to which, the petitioner has suffered physical, economical and mental loss. The respondents were colluded to each other and they have also misused their power and position for defaming the petitioner in his society, hence the petitioner filed complaint case for taking criminal action against the respondents. 8. On the basis of complaint, the learned trial Court has recorded preliminary statement witnesses and after recording preliminary evidence. vide order dated 12.08.2024 the learned trial Court has rejected the complaint case. 9. Being aggrieved by the order dated 12.08.2024 the petitioner filed a revision before the leaned Sessions Judge, Dhamtari and vide impugned order dated 09.10.2025 the learned revisional court has dismissed the revision. Hence this petition. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order dated 09.10.2025 is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, hence the same is liable to be set-aside/quashed. The learned Court below have failed to appreciate that the respondents have falsely prosecuted the petitioner in criminal case. The learned Court below have failed to appreciate that the respondents no. 1 & 2 with the help of respondents no. 3 to 5 have 5 falsely roped the petitioner in criminal case by using their minor daughter. He further contended that the learned Court below have failed to appreciate that the petitioner was prosecuted in the criminal case lodged by the respondent no. 1 and after completion of trial, vide judgment dated 29.09.2023 the learned trial Court has acquitted the petitioner from the criminal charges. While passing the judgment of acquittal, the learned Special Court has specifically observed in paragraph no. 28 & 30 that the evidence of victim and her father are not reliable and trustworthy and the prosecution has failed to prove the offences against the petitioner. He further contended that the learned Court below have failed to appreciate that the respondent no. 1 & 2 at the instance of their minor daughter and further with the collusion of respondents no. 3 to 5, have falsely implicated and prosecuted the petitioner in criminal case by lodging false and fabricated FIR No. 96/2021, due to which, the petitioner was arrested by Police of Police Station, Rudri on 16.12.2022 and sent to jail, thus the petitioner was remained in jail from 16.12.2021 to 09.11.2022 and due to detention of petitioner in jail, his dignity and reputation have been defamed. The learned Court below have failed to appreciate that due to false implication and detention of petitioner in jail, his relatives and nearby vicinities are seeing petitioner with bed eye and by treating the petitioner as criminal person and thereby the dignity. honesty and reputation of petitioner in society has been damaged, due to which, the petitioner has suffered physical, economical and mental loss. The learned Court below 6 have failed to appreciate that the respondents were colluded to each other and they have also misused their power and position for defaming the petitioner's reputation in his society, hence the petitioner filed complaint case for taking criminal action against the respondents. While examining before the trial Court, the petitioner and other witnesses have specifically deposed that on account of false prosecution, the petitioner has lost his dignity and reputation in the society and he has suffered mental, economical & physical loss, which cannot be recoverable. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 09.10.2025 may be set aside and remand the case to the trial Court for registration of offence against the respondents. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State-respondent supports impugned order and submits that impugned order is well merited and has been passed after considering the entire material available on record therefore, it is not a case to set aside of the impugned order, hence, the same may be dismissed. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties, the impugned orders passed by the Court below and other material available on record with utmost circumspection. 13. Having considered the pleadings, the material placed on record, and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. 7 14. Further considering Para -12 of the impugned order which is mentioned as under : “ अतः उपरोक्तः सं प्ቓ विचना पቐኋतः विनाष्क्ቧ है विक अवितःरिरोक्तः सं्ቔ न्यायाधीश एफ०टी%०एसं०सं० (पक्सं) धीमतःरो क जि(सं विना्ቓ या दि*ना क 29/09/2023 म+ क, गया *्ቧम.ሹኌक्तः क आधीरो परो परिरो*% / प.नारो्ቌ्ቓकतः ना ्ቚस्तःवितः अभि5या.क्तःग्ቓ / उ्ቈरो*%ग्ቓ क विरू्ቍ मना हैविना क आरोप लगकरो धीरो 500 5.*.सं . क परिरो* ्ቚस्तः.तः विकया गया है, उसं विना्ቓ या म+ न्यायालया ቛኋरो ऐसं कई विनाष्क्ቧ नाहै= दि*या गया है विक प.नारो्ቌ्ቓकतः / परिरो*% क ममल म+ झूठा फ संया गया था या उसंक विरु्ቍ विनारोधीरो अभि5या(ना विकया गया है। उसंक विपरोतः प.नारो्ቌ्ቓकतः क सं *है क ल5 *तः हुया *्ቧम.क्तः विकया गया है। ऐसं ሹኌDवितः म+ परिरो*% / प.नारो्ቌ्ቓकतः क याहै कहैना विक अवितःरिरोक्तः सं्ቔ न्यायाधीश एफ.टी%.एसं.सं. धीमतःरो क न्यायालया ቛኋरो उसंक मिमध्या अभि5या(ना क विनाष्क्ቧ दि*या गया है, आधीरोहैना है। प म+ ्ቢ्ቖ विकया ( च.क है विक ्ቚत्याक * विJक ममल म+ *्ቧम.ሹኌक्तः क तःत्पया याहै नाहै= हैतः है विक अभि5या.क्तः क ममल म+ झूठा फ संया गया है या उसं विቛኋ्ቧप्ቓ अभि5याजि(तः विकया गया है। उक्तः सं बं धी म+ विቛኋ्ቧप्ቓ अभि5या(ना या मनाहैविना क अपरोधी हैतः. सं ሺኋना लना क लिलया याहै आश्याक है विक विचरो्ቓ न्यायालया ቛኋरो विना्ቓ या म+ याहै विनाष्क्ቧ दि*या गया है विक अभि5या.क्तः/ परिरो*% क विरू्ቍ विቛኋ्ቧप्ቓ अभि5या(ना विकया गया या अभि5या.क्तः क विरू्ቍ विनारोधीरो ममल बंनाकरो अभि5याजि(तः विकया गया था। अतः परिरो*% / अभि5या.क्तः क ቛኋरो ्ቚस्तःवितः अभि5या.क्तःग्ቓ/ उ्ቈरो*%ग्ቓ क विरू्ቍ धीरो 500 5.*.सं . क अपरोधी हैतः. ्ቚस्तः.तः परिरो* म+ सं ሺኋना लिलया (ना याग्या ना हैना सं तःथा आग न्यामियाक कया है विकया (ना हैतः. ्ቚथाम दृᮅᯘ पया प्तः आधीरो वि्ቕमना नाहै= हैना ्ቚतःतः हैना क ( विनाष्क्ቧ , म.ख्या न्यामियाक मजि(स्቏ኔटी धीमतःरो क आ*श दि*ना क 12/08/2024 म+ दि*या गया है, है प्ቓ तः तःथ्या ए विमिधी क अना.क ल है है, जि(सं परो हैस्तः्ቌप विकया (ना क क कई विमिधीप्ቓ आधीरो हैना नाहै= पया (तः है। फलतः प.नारो्ቌ्ቓकतः ቛኋरो ्ቚस्तः.तः याहै प.नारो्ቌ्ቓ यालिचक संरोहैना हैना सं विनारोस्तः विकया (ना याग्या है, फलतः याहै प.नारो्ቌ्ቓ यालिचक विनारोस्तः विकया (तः है।" 15. The petitioner seeks a direction for registration of offences against the respondents on the basis of allegations arising out of the criminal case in which he has already been acquitted. On careful examination of the complaint, however, reveals that the petitioner has failed to disclose the commission of any cognizable offence by the respondents so as to warrant interference by this Court. The allegations made by the 8 petitioner pertain primarily to his alleged loss of reputation, dignity, and mental and economic hardship on account of the earlier criminal prosecution. These assertions, even if taken at their face value, do not fulfill the essential ingredients of any specific penal provision so as to justify the issuance of directions sought. 16. Moreover, the present petition suffers from jurisdictional and procedural deficiencies. The nature of the relief prayed for is outside the scope of the present proceedings and cannot be granted in the form in which the petition has been instituted. The law is well-settled that directions to register an offence or order criminal prosecution cannot be issued in the absence of a clear, specific, and legally sustainable allegation that constitutes an offence under the Penal Code or any other statute. 17. In light of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition is not maintainable in law, and no grounds are made out to interfere or to issue the directions prayed for. 18. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant