Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 732 (CHH)

Vijay Sharan Singh, S/o. Janki Sharan v. Ram Kumar, S/o. Shivnath

2025-09-12

Parth Prateem Sahu

body2025
ORDER : PARTH PRATEEM SAHU, J. 1. This petition is filed challenging the order dated 08.08.2019, passed in Criminal Revision No.6 of 2019 by Additional Sessions Judge, Pratappur (Surajpur) (C.G.), whereby learned Sessions Court has BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN dismissed the revision and upheld the order dated 23.01.2017, passed Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN in Complaint Case No.13/2017, whereby the Judicial Magistrate First Date: 2025.09.16 Class, Pratappur registered complaint and issuing process to non-applicant/petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that respondent No.1 was working as daily wage employee under him in horticulture department. He contended that during that period some dispute took place and as per allegation has made an attempt to abduct and demand ransom from respondent, however, on the say of Sarpanch of village, complainant/respondent No.1 was saved. Further allegation was also levelled of sexual assault, which are forming part of Annexure P-3, which is a report submitted by police on direction issued by Judicial Magistrate First Class. From the face of record, which is submitted by police, it is apparent that absolutely false allegation has been levelled in the complaint. Police has also recorded statement of witnesses while conducting enquiry and is also part of report submitted by police before the learned Magistrate. Learned Magistrate has not appreciated the contents of the report submitted by police and statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and have passed the order of registration of complaint and issuance of process which is per-se not sustainable. He also submits that there is delay in lodging complaint. The allegation of demand of money for providing government job is of the year 2006, however, the complaint is filed only on 24.02.2014. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that in the complaint application filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., complainant has clearly mentioned that petitioner/non-applicant therein has demanded Rs.80,000/- for providing government job, however for long time, he for one or other reason has assured, thereafter, refused to satisfy the commitment made by him to the complainant and return the money. Aggrieved with which, complainant has lodged report to the concerned police station upon which no proceeding was drawn, thereafter, complainant has also approached the higher police officials, however, when no proceeding was drawn then complaint was filed. Aggrieved with which, complainant has lodged report to the concerned police station upon which no proceeding was drawn, thereafter, complainant has also approached the higher police officials, however, when no proceeding was drawn then complaint was filed. He contended that at the sage of registration of complaint and issuance of process, contents of complaint application and statement of witnesses examined in support of the complaint is only to be considered by the Magistrate. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decision in case of Nupur Talwar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation , Delhi & Anr. reported in (2012) 2 SCC 188 . 4. Learned State counsel submits that learned Magistrate upon appreciation of contents of complaint and statement of witnesses recorded in support of complaint has already taken cognizance and issued process to petitioner. Petitioner can raised all the grounds of defence during enquiry before the Magistrate. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Perusal of Annexure P-2 would show that it is a copy of complaint filed by respondent No.1, in which, it is clearly averred that he was working as daily wage employee under non-applicant No.1/petitioner, who was working as Superintendent at Khorama Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur Office. Daily wage was being paid by petitioner. Petitioner has asked him to submit application for appointment to the post of peon and in lieu of which asked to deposit Rs.80,000/-, which was being paid to petitioner in cash. For sometime, complaint was assured to provide government job, however, later on petitioner/non-applicant refused to provide job and returned back money. In support of complaint, complainant has examined himself as witness No.1, Shivnath as witness No.2 and Bhagarathi as witness No.3. Bhagirathi is independent witness. 7. Learned Magistrate considering the pleadings made in the complaint/application and statement of witnesses recorded under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. has registered the complaint and issued process. At the stage of registration of complaint, Court is required to look into the allegation made in complaint and statement of witnesses recorded in support of complaint U/s. 200 of Cr.P.C. and if Magistrate/Court satisfied that there is material to proceed would register the complaint and to issue process. 8. At the stage of registration of complaint, Court is required to look into the allegation made in complaint and statement of witnesses recorded in support of complaint U/s. 200 of Cr.P.C. and if Magistrate/Court satisfied that there is material to proceed would register the complaint and to issue process. 8. Hon’ble Supreme court in case of Nupur Talwar (supra) has observed that Magistrate is required to exercise sound judicial discretion and apply his mind to the facts and materials before him. In doing so, the Magistrate is not bound by the opinion of the investigating officer and he is competent to exercise his discretion irrespective of the views expressed by the Police in its report and may prima facie find out whether an offence has been made out or not. Ttaking of cognizance means the point in time when a Court or a Magistrate takes judicial notice of an offence with a view to initiate proceedings in respect of such offence which appears to have been committed. At the stage of taking of cognizance of offence, the Court has only to see whether prima facie there are reasons for issuing the process and whether the ingredients of the offence are there on record. 9. Before this Court, the submission of learned counsel for respondent is only on the basis of report submitted by police on the direction of Magistrate. As held by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Magistrate is required to consider the material before him and to examine them independently, whether there is sufficient material to proceed or not. 10. In view of the discussions made herein above and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court I am of the view that at this stage, defence taken by non-applicant/petitioner is not to be considered. The non- applicant/petitioner would be at liberty to raise all the grounds available to him in the course of enquiry before the Magistrate at appropriate stage. 11. For the forgoing discussions, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the revisional Court as well as by Magistrate. 12. In a result, this petition has no merit and it is dismissed accordingly.