1 2025:CGHC:10396 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 740 of 2025 Sheikh Shabbir S/o Late Sheikh Mohammad Aged About 50 Years R/o Tarbahar, Dipupara, Ward No. 28, P.S. Tarbahar, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Municipal Corporation, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.. --- Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, Advocate. For State : Mr. GL Uike, PL For Municipal Corporation : Mr. Shantam Awasthi, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order On Board 03/03/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking quashment/setting aside for order dated 09/12/2024 passed by learned Session Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Revision 227/2024. 2. Relevant facts for disposal of this petition is that petitioner/complainant runs two wheeler repairing and servicing shop at Tarbahar, Bilaspur. On 23/11/2023, the Officers of the respondent-Municipal Corporation without giving any prior 2 intimation/notice put the articles/machines of the shop in their tractor-trolley and seized it. When the petitioner went to the Municipal Corporation Office, he was asked to submit affidavit in Rs.10 Stamp Paper, therefore, he submitted the affidavit, however, the seized articles/machines was not returned to him and it was informed that by the Municipal Corporation that they have not seized the articles/machines of the petitioner. On 10/08/2024, the petitioner preferred the complaint before the Police Station -Tarbahar for registration of offence against the officers of Municipal Corporation (Parvind Sharma, Suresh Sharma, Parmeshwar Yadav and other officers), but the police returned the said complaint with NCR REPORT. Thereafter, on 22/08/2024 the petitioner preferred the application/complaint before learned JMFC, Bilaspur, which was rejected on 22/10/2024. Against which, petitioner preferred the revision before the learned Session Court, which also came to be dismissed/rejected vide impugned order dated 09/12/2024. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Session Court has not properly considered the averments of the complaint/application of the petitioner and dismissed it on technical grounds, which is contrary to the law. Petitioner had filed copies of the pictures showing that the officers of the municipal corporation have broken his shop. If the application is filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC, it is not necessary to mention 3 the provision under which the application is moved, the Court can pass the orders based on the contents of the application. Petitioner has clearly mentioned the name of the accused persons in his complaint, therefore, it cannot be said that names of the accused persons were not mentioned in the application. The sections for prosecution against the government servant will only have to be taken if the application is allowed and FIR is registered, at the stage of deciding application under Section 156(3) Cr.PC is not required. Hence, it is prayed that impugned order may be set-aside/quash and application of the petitioner be allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submission of counsel for the petitioner and would submit that learned Court below has rightly passed the impugned order and rejected/dismissed the revision of the petitioner in which there is no need for interference. 5. Learned Session Court while dismissing the revision of the petitioner held as under: “08. विचारण न्यायालय के सम्ቌ ्ቚस्तुत आेदन में पुनरी्ቌणकता ने बतौर अनाेदक अभियु्ሹ नगर पालिलक विनगम विबलासपुर को अंविकत विकया है, उ्ሹ विाग के अधि(कारी/ कमचारी का नाम उ्ቤेलि*त नहीं है। पुनरी्ቌणकता ने यह नहीं बताया है विक आेदन विकस अधि(विनयम के विकस ्ቚा(ान के अंतगत ्ቚस्तुत विकया है। पुनरी्ቌणकता ने यह ी नहीं बताया है विक उ्ቈरादी के विकस अधि(कारी और विकस कमचारी ने उपरो्ሹानुसार कायाही विकया है। (ारा 197 दंड ्ቚवि0या संविहता तथा (ारा 218 ारतीय नागरिरक सुर्ቌा संविहता 2023 के अनुसार लोक 4 सेक को अभियोजि4त विकये 4ाने के पू शासन/ स्ቌम ्ቚाधि(कारी की अनुमधित आश्यक है। पुनरी्ቌणकता ने उपरो्ሹानुसार अनुमधित विचारण न्यायालय के सम्ቌ ्ቚस्तुत करने का अभिचन ्ቚ्቞ा(ीन पुनरी्ቌण में नहीं विकया है। विचारण न्यायालय के मूल अभिले* में उपरो्ሹानुसार अनुमधित ्ቚस्तुत नहीं है। ऐसी ቝኌस्थधित में ्ቚस्तुत पुनरी्ቌण ्ቚचलन योग्य नहीं होने से विनरस्त विकया 4ाता है। 09. आदेश की ्ቚधित के साथ विचारण न्यायालय का मूल अभिले* ापस विकया 4ाे।" 6. Considering facts of the case, pleadings made in the petition, submissions of counsel for the parties, observation of the learned Session Court, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition as there is no illegality, infirmity or any jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the trial Court as well as learned Session Court. 7. Accordingly, present petition is hereby dismissed. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J.