Page No.1 2025:CGHC:59010 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 829 of 2025 Suresh Kurre S/o Late Shri Aatmaram Kurre, Aged About 41 Years R/o Sai Niwas Apartment, House No. 201/e, Phase-1, Floor Ii, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) --- Applicant. versus 1 - Ramesh Kumar Yadav S/o Leeladhar Ram Yadav, Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Budhadand, Post Bagicha, District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Gajendra Ram Yadav S/o Daitariram Yadav, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Kudukela, Tahsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh). ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order On Board 04/12/2025 1. Challenge in this revision is to the order dated 26.11.2024, passed by learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Page No.2 Act, 1988), Jashpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.444/2024, whereby application filed by the applicant under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of this case are that the applicant is working on the post of ‘Labour Inspector’ and posted in the office of Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bilaspur. Non-applicant no.1 is posted as ‘Welfare Officer’ whereas non-applicant no.2 is working as Operator in the office of Labour Officer, Jashpur. On 20/07/2018, the applicant received a letter from the office of Labour Officer, Jashpur about certain irregularities in the distribution of the honorarium amount under the Skill Development Project of the State. Upon receiving the letter, the applicant inquired into the matter and upon inquiry he came to know that non-applicant no.1 despite being into Government Service was running a Society named as ‘C.G. Abhinandan Educational and Social Welfare Society’, which is responsible for distribution of the honorarium amount under the Skill Development Project and non-applicant nos.1 & 2 in connivance with each other committed irregularities in distribution of the funds. Apart from this, non-applicant no.1 has also obtained the service by using forged educational certificates. Thus, applicant submitted a complaint before the S.P, Bilaspur and Station House Officer, Police Station -Civil Lines, Bilaspur on Page No.3 25/05/21. The applicant also submitted a complaint before the Police Station Kotwali Jashpur on 14/09/21 as also before the S.P. Jashpur on 20/10/2021, but no action was taken by the Police authorities, therefore, the applicant filed an application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C before the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988), Jashpur, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 26/11/2024 holding that application has been filed after huge delay and applicant had no locus to file the complaint against the non-applicants. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that impugned order passed by the Court below is arbitrary, illegal, perverse and contrary to the law as Court below has failed to appreciate the fact that non-applicants are involved in committing the financial irregularity and embezzled the huge amount of public money and, thereby, caused loss to public exchequer. After due enquiry, the applicant has submitted the report and then complaint before the concerned police authorities, but no action has been taken on his complaint. The applicant has reported cognizable offence and, therefore, there cannot be any question of locus standi of the applicant. Hence, it is prayed that order dated 26/11/2024 (Annexure A-1) be quashed and a direction be issued to the concerned Police Station to register a complaint against the Page No.4 applicant. 4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the revision including the impugned order. 5. Perusal of impugned order reveals that learned Court below upon perusing the case/material found that prima facie there is no case made out against the respondents/non-applicants. Since, the complainant has not obtained the prosecution sanctioned against the respondents/non-applicants, therefore, on that basis learned Court below has rejected the application of the applicant/complainant. Thus, there is no illegality, perversity or any jurisdictional error in the impugned order. 6. In view of above, there is no need to interference in the impugned order and, accordingly, the revision is dismissed at admission stage. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J.