1 2025:CGHC:23044 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 362 of 2023 Smt. Krishna Devi W/o Shri Teejram Tilgam Aged About 39 Years Occupation Labor, R/o Village Taregaon, Maidan, Thana And Tahsil Bodla, District Kabeerdham Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Kabeerdham, District Kabeerdham Chhattisgarh 2 - Rajaram Patel S/o Indralal Patel Aged About 65 Years Caste Marar (Patel) Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Taregaon Maidan, Thana And Tahsil Bodla, District Kabeerdham Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Indrabai W/o Shri Rajaram Patel Aged About 60 Years Caste Marar (Patel) Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Taregaon Maidan, Thana And Tahsil Bodla, District Kabeerdham Chhattisgarh 4 - Jalesh Patel S/o Shri Rajaram Patel Aged About 45 Years Caste Marar (Patel) Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Taregaon Maidan, Thana And Tahsil Bodla, District Kabeerdham Chhattisgarh 5 - Jalshu Patel S/o Shri Rajaram Patel Aged About 42 Years Caste Marar (Patel) Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Taregaon Maidan, Thana And Tahsil Bodla, District Kabeerdham Chhattisgarh AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 6 - Smt. Khemin Bai W/ol Shri Jalshu Patel Aged About 38 Years Caste Marar (Patel) Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Taregaon Maidan, Thana And Tahsil Bodla, District Kabeerdham Chhattisgarh 7 - Parsu Patel S/o Shri Rajaram Patel Aged About 40 Years Caste Marar (Patel) Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Taregaon Maidan, Thana And Tahsil Bodla, District Kabeerdham Chhattisgarh 8 - Smt. Basanta Bai W/o Shri Parsu Patel Aged About 35 Years Caste Marar (Patel) Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Taregaon Maidan, Thana And Tahsil Bodla, District Kabeerdham Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Arvind Prasad, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11.06.2025 1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 17.01.2023 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge (Atrocities) Act Kabeerdham, District Kabeerdham (C.G.) in Unregistered Complaint Case /2021, whereby the complaint case filed by the appellant/complainant under Sections 3(1)(a), (b) and (y) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 r/w Section 341 of the IPC has been dismissed at motion stage without taking cognizance against the respondent/accused. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the appellant, who is the complainant, 3 filed a report against respondents No. 2 to 8 with the AJAK Kawardha Police Station, the Superintendent of Police's office, and the District Magistrate. However, despite her application, no action was taken, and the police did not register First Information Report (FIR), even though a prima facie case of a non-bailable, cognizable offense was apparent from the report. Therefore, the petitioner filed a complaint case on 22.12.2022, against the respondents before the Special Judge (Atrocities), Kabirdham, detailing the incident in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the complaint. The complaint alleges that the accused persons abused her using caste-based slurs. 3. The learned Special Judge, upon receiving the complaint, proceeded in accordance with Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and recorded the preliminary statement of the complainant and her companion. The complainant/appellant examined 04 witnesses in support of her case, and all the witnesses testified about the incident that occurred with the appellant. After recording the statements of the witnesses, instead of passing an order for the registration of the criminal complaint case, the learned Special Judge/trial Court called for a report from the Station House Officer of Police Station AJAK Kawardha, District Kabirdham. The report was to determine whether any offense had been registered based on the petitioner's application. The Police submitted a detailed report alongwith documents and statements of witnesses, stating that there was a land dispute between the parties and an incident had occurred in 2019. The report also mentioned that revenue cases were pending and further stated that cognizable 4 offenses were not attracted. 4. The learned trial Court relied on the Police Report and the documents attached to it, without considering the averments made in the application of the appellant/complainant. Additionally, the Court did not consider the documents attached to the application, which clearly indicated that the accused persons had abused her with filthy language, knowing well that the complainant/appellant belonged to a Scheduled Tribe and was a widow lady. The Court also failed to consider that the accused persons had tried to block her road from their house, thereby committing a serious offense. The application was dismissed without considering or reading the evidence available on record. It is pertinent to mention that when the appellant made a complaint to the police authorities, they failed to register an offense against the accused persons. This led to the filing of the complaint case, and evidence was recorded before registration. However, the said evidence was not discussed at the time of passing the impugned order. The complaint case was dismissed solely based on the Police Report, which is against the mandate of Section 200 of the CrPC. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court erred in passing the impugned order by dismissing the application / complaint case filed by the appellant on relying the Police Report dated 09.06.2022, he also failed to consider the fact that when the Police has not taken any action in the report of appellant than the occasion of filing the application under Section 200 of CrPC is arise and the said application was rejected on the 5 basis of of the said Police Report, which is not permissible under the eye of law. He further submits that the learned Special Court erred in rejecting the complaint case without considering and appreciating the evidence which is recorded during the course of investigation by the Court. Moreover, the appellant attached all relevant documents and from perusal of the same, it is crystal clear that the offence of atrocities has been committed by the respondent accused persons which is cognizable and non-bailable. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the order passed by the learned trial Court and submits that the learned trial Court, after considering all the aspects of the matter, has rightly rejected the complaint filed by the appellant, in which no interference is called for. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the prayers and pleadings made in the appeal along with the annexures annexed in the appeal. 8. From the perusal of the order passed by the trial Court, it transpires that the trial Court reviewed the complaint, the preliminary statement of complainant, and the testimony of witnesses, including Dukala Bai, Baliram, and Motiram, as well as the documents presented, according to which, the complainant had lodged a complaint with the AJAK Police Station and the S.P. Kabirdham regarding the incident in question. The AJAK Police Station submitted an Investigation Report dated 09.06.2022, which found that the land in front of both parties' houses is government land occupied by Rajaram. The complainant had exaggerated the issue 6 regarding possession of the land. A land dispute between the two parties was pending before the revenue Court. The Police investigation did not find any evidence of the alleged offense. Based on said report, the trial Court found the complaint was deemed not registrable. Consequently, dismissed the complaint. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the impugned order passed by the trial Court, I am of the considered opinion that the order passed by the trial Court does not call for any interference and accordingly, the present appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil