1 2025:CGHC:12883 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 463 of 2023 Smt. Champa Bai W/o Kamta Prasad Gangade Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Silli, Shaktighat, Police Station Dhamdha, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Madan Patel S/o Late Bhannu Lal Patel Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Silli, Shaktighat, Police Station Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sitaram Patel S/o Ramkumar Patel Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Silli, Shaktighat, Police Station Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Mohan Sahu S/o Late Bhulauram Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Silli, Shaktighat, Police Station Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Vishnu Nishad S/o Jagdish Nishad Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Silli, Shaktighat, Police Station Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Girvar Patel S/o Chhannu Lal Patel Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Silli, Shaktighat, Police Station Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Nandkumar Upadhyay S/o Tumman Lal Upadhyay Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Silli, Shaktighat, Police Station Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 7 - Jeevan Lal Patel S/o Badrinath Patel Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Silli, Shaktighat, Police Station Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 8 - Aganu Kenwat S/o Kondu Kenwat Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Silli, Shaktighat, Police Station Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 9 - Rameshwar Kenwat S/o Late Jagdish Nishad Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Silli, Shaktighat, Police Station Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 10 - Devnedra Sharma S/o Late Krishna Sharma Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Silli, Shaktighat, Police Station Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Adv assisted by Ms. A. Sandhya Rao, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Judgment on Board 18.03.2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 25.11.2022, whereby the unregistered complaint case filed by the appellant/complainant against the respondents has been rejected wherein the appellant has alleged commission of crime against her for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 354(b), 458, 506-B, 509 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 3(1)(x), (xi) and (xv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the appellant/complainant belongs to the Scheduled Caste category who filed a complaint case before the Court of learned Special Judge (Prevention of 3 Atrocities) Act, Durg, District- Durg (C.G), alleging that while she was returning home after answering the nature’s call at around 07:00 p.m. on 02.08.2019, the respondents, upon seeing her, hurled abuses naming her caste and thereafter assaulted her and slammed her on the ground. When the complainant raised a hue and cry, her younger son, Raju Jangde and her daughter-in-law, Sandhya came and rescue her. It was further alleged that in the complaint that the respondents gathered in front of her house and again threatened her with dire consequences and hurled abuses and in the night, they criminally trespassed in the house. In the complaint, it has been further alleged that her family has been socially boycotted by the said villagers, regarding which she had earlier made complaints before the Superintendent of Police, Durg on 17.05.2019, 22.05.2019, 29.07.2019 and 30.07.2019, but no action has been taken against the accused persons. On 03.08.2019, when the appellant/complainant was going to make a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Durg, the accused persons, namely Nand Kumar Upadhyay, Madan Patel and Rameshwar Nishad, stalked her and followed her up to the premises of the office of Superintendent of Police, Durg, where they threatened her that she would have to pay the price upon retuning to the village. The appellant/complainant had also made complaint on 17.05.2019 to the Station House Officer, Aajak, Durg, regarding which her statement along with statements of her relatives were recorded on 27.07.2019. When the investigation of 4 the complaint was pending, on 28.07.2019, at about 02:00 PM, the complainant and her husband were forcefully dragged out of their house and taken near the Sheetla Mandir, where they were mentally tortured. They were coerced to dismantle their own house and to remove the fencing made on the land situated near Sakti Ghat. When the appellant/complainant and her husband denied to comply with the directions of the accused/respondents, they forcefully removed the fencing. In the complaint, it has been alleged that despite various written complaints given to the various authorities of the Police Department, no action has been taken and as such she was constrained to file the complaint case before the Court of learned Special Judge. 3. The learned trial Court, after hearing the appellant/complainant and going through the materials on record, dismissed the complaint case vide order dated 25.11.2022, observing that though there existed a dispute between the parties, but the same appears to have been exaggerated and no case was made out against the accused/respondents, which is sought to be challenged herein. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order dated 25-11-2022 (Annexure A-1) is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the law, and is therefore liable to be quashed. He further submits that the complainant had made a complaint before 5 the concerned Police Officer, who was responsible for registering the case against the Respondents, the complaint alleged serious charges against the Respondents under cognizable offences, where no preliminary inquiry is required as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Lalita Kumari v. State of UP. Despite this, the police authority failed to register the case, compelling the complainant to file a complaint case, which was subsequently dismissed by the learned Court below solely based on an inquiry report obtained from the police. He also submits that this effectively deprived the complainant of her fundamental right to reside in her village. A prima facie case is made out against the Respondents, as the allegations reveal that the Respondents isolated the complainant’s family solely on the ground that she belongs to the Scheduled Caste community. Furthermore, the respondents allegedly assaulted and outraged her modesty, which is evident from the litigations pertaining to the village land and temple. Several complaints have also been registered against the complainant’s husband, indicating that the ingredients of the aforementioned sections are clearly made out against the Respondents. However, the learned Court below ignored all the material averments made by the complainant and dismissed the complaint case. Since Article 17 of the Constitution of India prohibits untouchability in all forms, the failure of the police authorities to take action against the Respondents is a clear violation of this fundamental right. Ultimately, the dismissal of the 6 complaint case filed by the appellant is unsustainable and is, therefore, liable to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that learned trial Court has rightly rejected the complaint being frivolous, considering that there is an ongoing land dispute between the parties. It is further submitted that when the appellant could not succeed in the land dispute, a false case has been lodged against the respondents to somehow settle their personals scores and as such, the order passed by the learned Special Judge does not warrant any interference and the appeal deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment impugned as also record of the trial Court. 7. From perusal of the order passed by the learned Special Judge, it appears that there is a dispute going on between the parties with regard to a parcel of land and the husband of the appellant is also alleged to have disfigured the Shakti Mata temple, upon which an FIR was lodged by one Tumanlal Upadhyay, which was registered as Crime No. 87/2019 for the offence under Section 295 of the Indian Penal Code, and in the night of 25.07.2019, the said Kamta Prasad Jangde, had disfigured the idol of Lord Ram and Lord Shiva and threw the same in the Shivnath River, regarding which 7 another case, being crime No. 128/2019 for the offence under Section 295 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and after investigation, challan has also been filed against him. 8. The learned Special Judge had directed the Station House Officer, Police Station Dhamdha, District Durg, to submit a report and from the perusal of the said report, the learned Special Judge has found that the dispute between the appellant/complainant and the respondents have been exaggerated and has been tried to be given a colour of a criminal offence, whereas it is admittedly the land dispute going on between the parties and on the contrary, the appellant/complainant and her family members are accused of having disfigured the idol of gods and goddesses. The learned trial Court has rightly rejected the complaint filed by the complainant, as no cognizance could be taken of a frivolous complaint and even the Investigating Officer has also found that the allegations levelled against the respondents by the appellant/complainant were false and no such incident has occurred. 9. This Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Special Judge and concurs with the findings arrived. As a result, this appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan