1 2025:CGHC:60918 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3441 of 2025 Janak Prasad Pathak S/o Late Goverdhan Prasad Pathak Aged About 58 Years Permanent Resident- Dharampura No.1, Near Nirmal Sadan, Jagdalpur Currently Residing At 303 B Block Indraprastha Apartment D.D. Nagar, Raipura, Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Janjgir, District- Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from the CIS) For Petitioner : Ms. K. Tripti Rao, Advocate For State-Respondent : Mr. Ajit Singh, GA For Complainant : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 15/12/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2 2. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 being aggrieved with the order dated 12.09.2025 passed by the Special Judge, SC & ST (P.A.) Act, Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.SCC SC/ST Act/36/2021, whereby the learned trial Court suo moto exercised power under Section 311 of CrPC and reopened the evidence of the prosecution by summoning the witness. 3. Factual matrix of the case, in nutshell, is that on 03.06.2020 Prosecutrix filed a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), stating that on 16.03.2020 she along with Anju Gabel who is member of the Consumer Forum and works for an NGO, went to the Office of the Collector, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) to discuss regarding allotment of Mid-Day Meal Work to Amin Mata Self Help Group. 4. After discussion about the said work, Petitioner who was the then Collector of Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), took mobile no. of the Prosecutrix and told her that she will be informed once the allotment of the aforementioned work gets confirmed. Thereafter, the Petitioner would regularly call, message and WhatsApp her from different mobile numbers. As per the complaint, after some days Petitioner would send vulgar messages and pictures to Prosecutrix from those numbers. And when Prosecutrix objected to the same, Petitioner threatened her of dire 3 consequences and one being that her husband would be dismissed from his service. 5. Thereafter on 15.05.2020, Prosecutrix was asked by the Petitioner to meet him in his office regarding allotment of work. And on the very day, around 2.00 pm 3.00 pm, Prosecutrix reached the office of the Collector, where she was called by the Petitioner in his chamber. After talking for some time regarding work, Petitioner forcibly took the Prosecutrix to his private room, where Petitioner raped the Prosecutrix and was also warned of dire consequences if she tried to inform about the incident to anyone. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid written complaint an FIR was registered against the Petitioner for offences u/s 376, 506, 509 (B) of IPC and after investigation chargesheet was filed for offences u/s 376, 506, 509(B) of IPC, u/s 67 of IT Act and u/s 3(2) (5) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 7. Thereafter charges were framed against the Petitioner u/s 376, 506, 509(B) of IPC, u/s 67 of IT Act and u/s 3(2) (5) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 which was denied by him u/s 313 of CrPC. 8. Thereafter trial commenced against the Petitioner in the Court of District & Session Judge who was also discharging his duties of Special Judge 4 (Atrocities). Total 13 prosecution witnesses and only one defence witness i.e. Petitioner himself were examined. 9. On 04.02.2025, prosecution made submission before the Ld. Trial Court that all material prosecution witnesses were examined therefore they would not like to examine any further witness and prayed to the Ld. Court for closing of prosecution witness. Considering the prayer of the prosecution the Trial closed the prosecution witness and fixed the case for statement of Accused. 10. On 17.03.2025, the Petitioner filed his written statement u/s 313 (5) of CrPC and matter was fixed for defence witness on 26.03.2025. Meanwhile, a designated Special Court was notified for SC/ST (P.A.) Act cases and the case was transferred to the said Special Court on 01.04.2025. 11. On 28.04.2025, advocate appearing for the Petitioner categorically submitted before the Ld. Trial Court that they do not want any defence witness to be examined and prayed for closing of defence witness and final argument in the matter, but instead of considering the aforesaid prayer Ld. Trial Court again fixed the matter for defence witness. It is pertinent to mention here that the Ld. Trial Court continued passing the same orders on the subsequent dates i.e. 13.05.2025, 09.06.2025, 24.06.2025, 22.07.2025 & 13.08.2025 despite there being categorical submission by the Petitioner's Advocate that they do not intend to 5 examine any defence witness further, however the Ld. Trial Court never mentioned the actual prayer made by the Petitioner's Advocate in any of the aforesaid orders. On the contrary it was mentioned or made to look, that it was the Advocate of the Petitioner who repeatedly asked for time for defence witness. 12. Considering the urgent request made by the Advocate of Petitioner for final hearing in the case, trial Court vide order dated 12.09.2025 closed the defence witness but reopened the prosecution witness and issued summons to witnesses whose examination is immaterial in the present case. 13. Learned Counsel for petitioner contends that the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 is erroneous and contrary to law and same is liable to be quashed. The Trial Court while passing the impugned order, has failed to appreciate the materials available on record in its correct prospective. She further contends that the trial Court is deliberately using dilatory tactics to avoid passing of the judgment because when the advocate for the Petitioner repeatedly requested for final hearing in the case, every time the Trial Court said that it was not prepared with the file and kept adjourning the matter without there being any formal requests for the same by the Petitioner. The trial court never recorded the actual reason in the order sheets, which were made subsequent to 28.04.2025 and deliberately pinned the reason on adjournments. It clear from the 6 material available on record that the Prosecutrix falsely implicated the Petitioner in order to take revenge just because she could not get work of mid day meal for Amin Mata Self Help Group which is already established from her statement as well as written statement given by the accused under 313 of CrPC. She further contends that the trial Court without any valid and strong reasons reopened the evidence of prosecution which will unnecessary prolong the trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the power u/s 311 of Cr.P.C. must be exercised with care, caution and circumspection. The power must be exercised keeping in mind that the evidence that is likely to be tendered would be germane to the issue involved. 14. Reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajaram Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in 2013 Lawsuit (SC) 562. Para l & m of Para- 23 of the said judgment reproduced as under :- “(l). The additional evidence must not be received as a disguise or to change the nature of the case against any of the party. (m). The power must be exercised keeping in mind that the evidence that is likely to be tendered, would be germane to the issue involved and also ensure that an opportunity of rebuttal is given to the other party.” 7 15. The impugned order passed by the learned trial court is arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to law as exercise of power u/s 311 of CrPC should be judicious and invoked for the discovery of relevant facts or proper proof, ensuring justice without causing prejudice and therefore same deserves to be set-aside and it is prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition and set aside the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 in the interest of justice. 16. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and contends that the brief facts relevant adjudication of the instant petition are that ; on the basis of written complaint made by the complainant, an FIR was registered by PS Janjgir under Crime No.256/2020 against the then Collector – Janaj Prasad Pathak (Petitioner) for the offence under Section 376, 506, 509(B) of IPC with the allegation that for allotment of Mid-Day Meal Work to Amin Mata Self Help Group on 15.05.2020 the petitioner who was the then Collector forcibly took the prosecutrix to his private room, where she was subjected to rape and was also warred of dire consequences by the petitioner if she tried to inform about the incident to anyone. On the basis of charge-sheet submitted by the police, charges were framed against the petitioner. The petitioner abjured his guilt under Section 313 of CrPC. He further contends that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by the answering respondent, the 8 present petition is devoid of any merit and substance and thus, deserves to be dismissed. 17. Learned counsel for the complainant contends that the complainant has no objection, so far as the contents of the petition are concerned. He further contends that the complainant does not want any further action against the petitioner. 18. I have heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the documents filed along with revision. 19. On perusal of order dated 30.09.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.), relevant part of the said order is as under : "इस ्ቚकरण ेሰ अभियुक्त क दिाሪक 14.10.2020 क गिरफ्तर कराሪ क बा, उस गितथि क ेሰगि कल एवं .एाሪ.ए. हेत उपቝኌ'त हेाሪ बाबात( ाሪदि)स अत*त धार 91 .्ቚ.स. दियु यु , तबा अभियुक्त ाሪ स्वंयु क पर्ቌण कराሪ स असहेेሰगित ्ቤक्त गिकयु हे/, पाሪ0 दिाሪक 26.11.2020 क गिवंवंचक ቛኋर अभियुक्त क ाሪदि)स अत*त धार 91 .्ቚ.स. दियु यु , जि4सेሰ उसाሪ असहेेሰत हेाሪ लख गिकयु हे/। उपरक्त तथ्यु स युहे ቦኌ9:त हेत हे/ गिक अभियुक्त स्वंयु क .एाሪ.ए. )स्) कराሪ यु .एाሪ.ए. ्ቚफाईल हेत रक्त आदि ाሪ ेሰ असहेेሰत हे/। युहे स'गिपत हे/ गिक अभियुक्त क स्वंयु क गिवंरू्ቍ सቌኚयु ाሪ क थिलयु बाध्यु ाሪहेB गिकयु 4 सकत हे/, अत0 अभियुक्त क .एाሪ.ए. ्ቚफाईल हेत रक्त क ाሪेሰCाሪ ाሪ यु .एाሪ.ए. )स्) कराሪ क थिलयु आथि9त गिकयु 4ाሪ उथिचत ्ቚतत ाሪहेB हेत हे/। अत0 अभियु4ाሪ कD ओर स प9 आवंाሪ प्ቔ दिाሪक 12.01.2021 क गिाሪरकरण इस गिाሪG9 क स गिकयु 4त हे/ गिक युदि अभियुक्त सहेेሰत हे त .एाሪ.ए. ्ቚफाईल क थिलयु उसक रक्त ाሪेሰCाሪ थिलयु 4 सकत हे/ यु .एाሪ.ए. )स्) करयु 4 सकत हे/।" 9 20. On perusal of record, it is crystal clear that the prosecution has not filed any application under Section 311 of CrPC before the trial Court. It is also undisputed fact that the victim/prosecutrix has also not filed application under Section 311 of CrPC before the trial Court. Further, the prosecution witnesses have already been examined and prosecution has closed evidence and defence witness on 12.09.2025 and after seven times hearing of the matter, order passed under Section 311 of CrPC. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner draw attention to this Court that the prosecutrix has already been examined before the Court and in Para No.37 to 39 of additional document, she stated as under : “37. युहे कहेाሪ सहे हे/ गिक न्युयुलयु ेሰ 164 .्ቚ.स. क बायुाሪ ाሪ पCवं* ेሰझे बावं ल यु गिक आरप क गिवंरू्ቍ काሪ कराሪ हे/ तबा ेሰ र कर उाሪक बातयु अाሪसर काሪ गिकयु । युहे कहेाሪ सहे हे/ गिक थिलखिखत आवंाሪ ्ቚ.प.-03, ्ቚेሰ सCचाሪ प्ቔ ्ቚ.प.-04 एवं धार 164 .्ቚ.स. क बायुाሪ ्ቚ.प.-10 ेሰ क तथ्यु असत्यु हे/, ेሰर स आरप ाሪ कई बालत्कर ाሪहेB गिकयु हे/। 38. युहे कहेाሪ सहे हे/ गिक दिाሪक 15/05/2020 क आरप ाሪ ेሰर स बालत्कर ाሪहेB गिकयु हे/। युहे कहेाሪ सहे हे/ गिक दिाሪक 15/05/2020 क पCवं* एवं पቐኋत( आरप ाሪ ेሰर स अቨኍल च/िሡ): ाሪहेB गिकयु हे/ त दु*्ቤवंहेर ाሪहेB गिकयु हे/। युहे कहेाሪ सहे हे/ गिक आरप ाሪ ेሰर स क 4गितत ल लPच ाሪहेB गिकयु हे/। युहे कहेाሪ सहे हे/ गिक दिाሪक 15/05/2020 क बा आरप स फााሪ स बातचत करत क्युगिक आरप ाሪ ेሰर स क कई लत केሰ ाሪहेB गिकयु और र )C इ) कयु*्ቅेሰ ाሪ क गिाሪवंाሪ करत । युहे कहेाሪ सहे हे/ गिक आरप ाሪ ेሰझे क ेሰबाईल स अቨኍल वंगि युS ेሰ/स4 ाሪहेB 4 हे/। 39- युहे कहेाሪ सहे हे/ गिक ेሰख्यु पर्ቌण ेሰ 4 ेሰUाሪ आरप ቛኋर बालत्कर कराሪ क तथ्यु बातई ूሺW वंहे ेሰ/ाሪ रिरश्त क पथिलस अधिधाकर क कहेाሪ पर बावं ेሰ काሪ कD । युहे कहेाሪ सहे हे/ गिक ेሰख्यु पर्ቌण ेሰ ्ቤक्त बालत्कर क तथ्यु सत्यु ाሪहेB हे/ आरप ाሪ ेሰर स बालत्कर ाሪहेB गिकयु हे/। ेሰU रिरप)* थिलखाሪ स लकर ेሰख्यु पर्ቌण त तक गिाሪG9 ्ቤቝኌक्त पर बालत्कर कD रिरप)* थिलखाሪ क आत्ेሰग्लाሪ ेሰ 10 आ4 ेሰU 4 काሪ कर रहे ूሺW वंहे स्वंयु अपाሪ इስኋ स कर रहे ूሺW।" 22. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the statement of the prosecutrix and other material available on record. It is pertinent to mention here that after arresting the accused on 14.10.2020, a notice was given to him under Section 91 Cr.P.C. on the same date to appear for medical and DNA test, then the accused expressed his disagreement to get himself tested, again on 26.11.2020, the investigating officer gave a notice to the accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C., in which he wrote his disagreement. From the above facts, it is shown that the accused is not agreeing to get his DNA test done or to give blood etc. for DNA profiling. This fact has already taken on record. Further considering that the Complainant has no objection, so far as the contents of the petition are concerned, The Complainant does not want any further action against the petitioner. 23. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 (Annexure P-1 Colly.) passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the concerned Court and after hearing the final arguments of the parties, pass the judgment on its own merits in accordance with law/rules without prejudice to the observation of this Court. 11 24. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of this case. 25. With the aforesaid direction, the instant CrMP stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge V@sant