1 2026:CGHC:2591 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 702 of 2025 1 - Inderpal Singh Bhatia S/o Late Harbans Singh Bhatia presently Aged About 65 Years Resident Of Jagatpur, Dhimrapur Road, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Poonam Chand Agrawal S/o Lalchand Agrawal presently Aged About 61 Years Resident Of Ganj, Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Sunil Agrawal S/o Ramdas Agrawal presently Aged About 58 Years Resident Of Friends Colony, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - Suresh Sharma @ Rajendra Sharma S/o Late Krishna Sharma presently aged About 66 Years Resident Of Lal Tanki Road, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Sarita Devi Jagatramka W/o Suresh Kumar Jagatramka presently Aged About 57 Years Resident Of Gandhi Putla Chowk, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - The Station House O;cer P.S. City Kotwali, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, (C.G.) ---- Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.P. Sharma, and Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocates. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Suresh Kumar Jagatramka, Advocate. For Respondent No.2/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15/01/2026 1. Heard Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Hari Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Suresh Kumar Jagatramka, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, and Mr. Amit Verma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent No.2/State. 2. The present petition has been ?led under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the BNSS) by the petitioners with following prayer: “(i)Quash and/or set-aside the order dated 27.04.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No. 40/2019. (ii) Quash and/or set aside the entire consequential and subsequent orders (consequent to Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Trial Court i.e. the Court of Judicial Magistrate Class-1, Raigarh (C.G.) in Complaint Case No. 332/2019, particularly the order dated 02.05.2019, 04.05.2019 and 10.05.2019 [part of Annexure P-2 (Colly)], and in e5ect direct the learned Trial Court to take the Preliminary Police Investigation report on record and after perusal of the same, proceed in accordance with law. (iii) Quash the entire complaint petition being registered as complaint case Nо. 332/2019 (Annexure P-2), 9led by Respondent No. 1 and pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Class-1, Raigarh (C.G.) (iv) Any other orders in favour of the petitioner as this Court may deem 9t in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” 3. According to the petitioner, the genesis of the instant case relates to land 3 bearing Nazul Sheet No. 44, Plot No. 3/5 area admeasuring 2400 sg. ft. situated at Gandhi Putla Road, Raigarh, District- Raigarh and there is a chequered history of litigation with the respect of the said land. 4. According to the petitioner, in the year 1952, one Bhanwari Lal Jagatramka (who happens to be the father-in-law of the complainant/ respondent No.1) has auction purchased the said land on lease from the State Government out of his self acquired income and his name was recorded in the revenue records and he came in occupation and possession of said land. The said Banwari Lal Jagatramka had two sons, elder namely Suresh Kumar Jagatramka, who resided at Raigarh and younger son Mahesh Kumar Jagatramka, who resided at Kolkata. After passage of time, relations between said Banwari Lal Jagatramka and his elder son namely Suresh Kumar Jagatramka (who happens to be husband of Complainant/respondent No.1) become estranged and said Banwari Lal was thrown out of his Raigarh residential house by his said elder son and complainant/respondent No.1 and he had to take shelter with his younger son namely Mahesh Jagatramka, at his residence at Kolkata and continued living therein till his last breath. Sometime in the year 2005, Banwari Lal Jagatramka appointed Petitioner No. 4 herein as his Power of Attorney Holder for the purpose of renewal of lease of said land including other lands held by him. Accordingly, lease was renewed in the name of said Banwari Lal and by virtue of a registered gift deed, the said Land was gifted/donated in favour of Ankul Jagatramka (son of Mahesh Jagatramka) and thereafter name of Ankul Jagatramka was recorded as the owner of said Land and thereafter the said property was purchased by Petitioners No. 1 to 3 herein and their names were recorded in the revenue records and since then there is a continuous entry of their names in the revenue records and Petitioners No. 1 to 3 are 4 in possession of said Land. 5. On or about in the month of March, 2019, the Petitioners No. 1 to 3 herein came to know that the complainant/respondent No.1 along with her husband was spreading rumors in the neighborhood of the said land that they have acquired the said land in their name by an order of the Court and the petitioners would soon be ejected from possession of said subject land. Thereafter the petitioners also came in contact with some of the other land owner who have also earlier purchased land originally held by Banwari Lal Jagatramka and they informed the petitioners about passing of a compromise decree/award of Lok Adalat and fraud committed by the complainant/respondent No.1 and her husband in collusion and that they have also challenged the said decree before this Court. Thereafter on 01.03.2019, the petitioners through their counsel had immediately ?led an application for inspection and also ?led application for obtaining certi?ed copy of the entire record. On receipt of the said records, the petitioners came to know that the complainant and her husband have fraudulently inter-se obtained a compromise decree with respect to said land and thereafter they have challenged the said decree by ?ling a writ petition bearing W.P.(227) No. 301/2019 and vide order dated 14.08.2019, the aforesaid compromise decree had been set- aside by this Court and the civil case relating to aforesaid land is pending consideration before the learned District Court at Raigarh. On 18.03.2019 (i.e. in between 01.03.2019 when the petitioners have applied for inspection/ certi?ed copies of records and ?ling of aforesaid writ petition), the complainant/Respondent No.1 herein has ?led a criminal complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for registration of a case against the petitioners herein under Sections 307, 354, 323, 379, 382, 294, 427, 44, 447, 448, 449, 452, 453, 120B and 506B of the IPC. 5 6. Mr. B.P.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that a glance of the criminal complaint will make it clear that in substance, the allegation of the complainant is that she is the owner of the land bearing Nazul Sheet No. 44, Khasra No. 3/5 situate at Gandhi Chowk, Raigarh, which is in form of a garden and is annexed to residential house of complainant and on 16.03.2019 at around 6 a.m., the petitioners came in the said land and tried to take its possession forcibly and during the said process abused the complainant, outraged her modesty and assaulted the complainant with iron rod and tried to murder her. A further allegation has been made that the complainant, her husband and her sons have reported the matter to the authorities over phone while dialing distress number 112 and thereafter Police reached the spot and advised them to go to City Kotwali, Raigarh and upon reaching P.S.-City Kotwali, due to the pressure of the Police authorities, her husband and her son were forced to sign on stamp papers of Rs. 100/- and other papers and no action has been taken on medical slip of son of complainant. Thereafter, it is alleged that entire incident was complained before the SHO, City Kotwali and the SP, Raigarh but no action has been taken by them, as such the complainant was constrained to ?le the captioned complaint. The order dated 25.03.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raigarh, reEects that vide order dated 18.03.2019, the case was mistakenly posted for pre-summoning evidence and vide order dated 25.03.2019, the learned Trial Court was pleased to call for Police report from the concerned Police Station. Further, due to the above, the complainant witnesses were discharged without any examination or recording of evidence. Thereafter, by order dated 03.04.2019, the learned Magistrate was pleased to call for a preliminary Police investigation report and kept the matter for Police report and pre- 6 registration examination of witnesses. Thereafter on 06.04.2019, only at the instance of the complainant/respondent No.1, the pre-registration examination of witnesses of complainant was recorded and closed and further time was granted to Police authorities to submit the Police report for the reason that the statement of complainant was not recorded by the Police authorities. On 12.04.2019, due to non-cooperation of complainant and her husband in recording their statements before the Police authorities, time was granted to the Police authorities to submit their report, holding that the report of the Police is important for consideration of the matter. Thereafter again on 18.04.2019, time was granted to the Police authorities to submit their report. Thereafter, challenging the aforesaid order dated 18.04.2019, the complainant ?led a revision before the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh being Criminal Revision No. 40/2019. 7. According to Mr. Sharma, in the revisional proceedings, the learned revisional Court at the preliminary stage itself without issuing any notice to the accused persons (petitioners herein) and even without appreciating the fact that the order under challenge is purely an interlocutory order and the same cannot be challenged by way of revision petition, allowed the revision and vide order dated 27.04.2019, directed the learned Trial trial Court to recall/review the order of calling of preliminary Police Investigation report and also issuing a further speci?c direction to register the case and proceed under Section 200 to 204 Cr.P.C., thereby interfering with the independence of the Trial Court and as such caused serious prejudice to the petitioners. Thereafter on 02.05.2019, in view of the non-submission of the Police report and according to the direction of revisional Court, the learned Magistrate Court reviewed its own order and recalled the order of calling of Police 7 report. Thereafter, on 03.05.2019, the Police authorities ?led an application before the Court of Magistrate seeking leave to ?le the Police report, however by order dated 04.05.2019, the same was dismissed pursuant to the order of the revisional Court and ?nally, by order dated 10.05.2019, registered the case for oFence punishable under section 323, 294, 427 and 452 of I.P.C. and directly issued arrest/non-bailable warrants against the petitioners herein. Thereafter, challenging the aforesaid orders of issuance of arrest warrant and also the orders of the learned revisional Court and the learned Trial Court, the petitioners approached this Court by way of ?ling a writ petition being W.P. (Cr) No. 370/2019, wherein vide order dated 27.06.2019, a learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to protect the liberty of the petitioners and also stayed the further proceedings of the learned Trial trial Court. Further, the aforesaid interim protection order has been continued from time to time. Thereafter on 12.02.2025, when the aforesaid writ petition was being heard ?nally by this Court, due to defect in the prayer clause, the petitioners had to withdraw the said petition with liberty to ?le afresh specifying the prayers. In the aforesaid view and liberty granted by this Court, since the genesis of the writ petition was the order dated 27.04.2019 passed by the learned revisional Court and every other order of the learned Trial Court was only consequential and subsequent to said order dated 27.04.2019, the instant petition is being ?led before this Court praying to invoke its inherent jurisdiction and correct the manifest errors committed by the learned trial Court. 8. Mr. Sharma submits that by way of impugned order dated 27.04.2019, a purely interlocutory order dated 18.04.2019 has been interfered by the revisional Court in Criminal Revision No.40/2019 in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. without providing 8 any opportunity of hearing to the accused persons/petitioners herein. Consequent to the impugned order dated 27.04.2019, the learned Magistrate Court has without jurisdiction recalled the order dated 18.04.2019 and other orders of calling of Police report, and has also illegally refused to take on record the Police report submitted by the Police authorities on 03.04.2019. By way of the impugned order dated 27.04.2019, the learned revisional Court has directed the learned Trial Court to act in a particular manner and direction, thereby directly interfering in the independent proceedings of the learned trial Court. Due to the above, the learned Magistrate Court directly issued non-bailable warrants of arrest against the petitioners herein instead of summons. Perusal of the order sheets will make it clear that the concerned Magistrate Court has in exercise of its jurisdiction ordered for production of the Police report on 03.04.2019 and after observing that the default of the Police authorities is due to the non-cooperation of the complainant and her husband, gave time to the Police authorities for submitting the said report on 12.04.2019 and 18.04.2019. At the instance of the complainant, said interlocutory order dated 18.04.2019 has been interfered by the Revisional Court in Criminal Revision No. 40/2019 in exercise of jurisdiction under section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. but without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and in express violation of the statutory provision and law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard. 9. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners herein are themselves the victim and not perpetrators as alleged by the complainant/respondent No.1. That the incidents as happened on the fateful day has also been reported by the petitioners herein and counter case in this regard has also been registered by the 9 Police authorities. On 16.03.2018, no complain whatsoever has been ?led by the complainant or on her behalf by any other person before the SHO, City Kotwali alleging any of the incidents as stated in the complaint case in spite of the fact that her husband and her son were present in the Police Station relating to the incident, as such the entire complaint is an afterthought and made with the sole intent to falsely implicate the petitioners herein and on this ground alone the entire proceeding since it is very inception is liable to set-aside. 10. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners pray for perusal of the order registering criminal case against the petitioner and from perusal of the same it will be clear that the trial Court has not gone into the nature of complaint and documents annexed therein and statement which has been recorded and the said statements are full of contradictions and omissions and not supporting the averments made in the complaint in its entirety. The registration of the criminal case by any agency whosoever i.e. Police or the court, is a serious thing and when illegality is made out on the face of the record then registration and continuance of criminal proceedings amounts to infringement of fundamental and constitutional rights and courts of law always come to the rescue of innocent persons and this is one such case where the petitioners are entitled for quashing of criminal proceedings. 11. In support of his contentions, Mr. Sharma places reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Raghu Raj Singh v. Shivam Sundaram Promotors {(2009) 2 SCC 363}, Manharibhai Muljhibai and Ors v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai {(2012) 10 SCC 517}, Dharmeshbhai Vasudevbhai and ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. {(2009) 6 SCC 576}, Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal {(2007) 12 SCC 10 1}, Rosy and Ors v. State of Kerala {(2002) 2 SCC 230}. 12. On the other hand, Mr. Suresh Kumar Jagatramka, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/complainant submits that on dated 16.03.2019 the petitioners, namely, Inderpal Singh Bhatia along with Poonamchand Agrawal, Sunil Kumar Agrawal and Suresh Sharma had forcibly entered/trespassed in the gardening land and car parking area (Plot No. 3/5) of the residential house of respondent No. 1 which is in the possession of the respondent No. 1 and caused physical injuries on the her and threw out the items stored by her. The petitioners used iron rods, crowbars, bricks etc. to ?rstly attack the complainant’s son and broke his ?nger nails of his left hand and attacked the respondent No. 1 and cause them grievous injuries. The Maruti-800 car, belonging to the respondent No. 1 was also damaged and causing damage to the trees and plants situated on the land by the aforesaid persons. The respondent No.1 tried to lodge FIR in the Police Station which was denied as such she was constrained to ?le a complaint case against the petitioners . C.C.T.V. footage, documents of the illegal encroachment and assault on the respondent No. 1 on 16.03.2019 was also submitted before the learned Court. The learned JMFC Raigarh had called Police report four times from the concerned Police Station, but as it was not complied with, the respondent No. 1 ?led a revision being Cr.R. No. 40/19, in which the learned II ASJ, Raigarh, issued direction to proceed with the complaint case as per Section 200 to 204 of Cr.P.C vide its order dated 27.04.2019 and after following the said order, the learned JMFC has proceeded. The JMFC Raigarh had called Police Report from the respective Police station on dated 02.05.2019. The learned JMFC has attached the documents submitted by the respondent No.1 in complaint case and heard the argument and DVD submitted by respondent No.1 has been 11 viewed by the JMFC, Raigarh on dated03.05.2019. The Police report was not submitted up to 04.05.2019 as per order passed by JMFC, Raigarh on dated 04.05.2019. The JMFC Raigarh has inquired into the case himself under Section Section 202 of Cr.P.C on the basis of evidence, photographs and other appropriate documents and registered complaint case against the petitioners vide its order dated 10.05.2019. Thereafter, the petitioners have ?lled revision case against JMFC Raigarh complaint case before the Court of Fifth Additional, Sessions Judge Raigarh in Criminal Revision No.52/2019 and 53/2019, which were subsequently withdrawn by the petitioners. 13. Mr. Jagatramka further submits the petitioners had ?led bail application, which was rejected by Special Court Raigarh in Bail application No. 275/2019 and 278/2019. After registration of the complaint case, the respondent No. 1 has ?lled revision case before the Court of Fifth Additional, Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Criminal Revision No. 50/2019 for imposing remaining oFences which had not been imposed by the learned JMFC, Raigarh in which the petitioners have been appeared. 14. So far as the factual aspect of the case is concerned, Mr. Jagatramka submits that the petitioners have stated that late Banwari Lal had two sons, which is also wrong ab-initio as per personal knowledge of respondent No. 1 as late Banwari Lal had three sons namely Ganesh Kumar, Mahesh Kumar and Suresh Kumar. It has also mentioned in the petition that Suresh Kumar is elder and Mahesh Kumar is younger son of late Banwari Lal, but in fact the name of elder son is Ganesh Kumar and younger is Suresh Kumar and Mahesh Kumar is the middle brother. The facts have been submitted in twisted for only to misguide this Court. It is also wrong to say that a person named Ankul had received the property 12 under gift and became owner of the said property and had sold the property to petitioner No.1 to 3, whereas the said person named Ankul had no relation and concerned with the said property. 15. On 02.05.2019 the learned trial court has summoned the enquiry report from the Police and the respondent No.1 had submitted her statement before the Police before the said dates, but enquiry report was not submitted by the Police before the concerned Court and the case was registered by the learned trial court on 10.05.2019 under the Sections mentioned in the petition. The order passed by the revisional Court in Cr.R 40/2019 dated 27.04.2019 was for direction to proceed in the complaint case as per section 200 to 204 of Cr.P.C. As per Section 401 (2) of Cr.PC, "No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence", but in the revision petition i.e. Cr.R No. 40/2019, the order passed by the revisional Court on 27.04.2019 is in no manner prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners. The revision petition ?led by the petitioners against the order dated 16. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that the petitioners had ?lled revision petition against the Complaint Case No. 332/2019, being Cr.R. No. 52/2019 and 53/2019, which have been subsequently withdrawn by the petitioners and as such, the present petition is not maintainable as the petitioners have suppressed the fact before this Court and therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold since they have not approached before this Court with clean hands and suppression of matter should be taken seriously. The JMFC Raigarh had called Police report four times from the concerned Police 13 Station, but the same was not ?led by the police and as such, the respondent No. 1 had to ?le revision petition. The criminal revision was not for the order of registration of case, it was only for issuing a direction about non submission of Police report and it is not necessary to hear the petitioners on the question of non submission of Police report before registration and learned II ASJ has provided direction to proceed with the case, and then only JMFC Raigarh had called again Police report from the concerned Police station. Hence, the order/award passed by the learned JMFC Raigarh is in accordance with law, is correct, legal and reasoned order and it has been passed under the provisions of law. Therefore there are no valid grounds has been raised by the petitioners to entertain the petition and the same may be dismissed. Lastly, Mr. Jagatramka has drawn attention of this Court to the order sheets dated 23.07.2025 and 19.09.2025 of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raigarh to state that the petitioners have been appearing before the learned trial Court wherein they can take their pleas. 17. Mr. Amit Verma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No. 2 submits that the contesting party in this petition is the respondent No. 1 and the police is required only to follow the directions issued by the Hon’ble Court. 18. Relying on the rejoinder ?led, Mr. Sharma submits that no such incident as projected by the respondent No. 1 ever occurred. A bare perusal of Annexure P-5 at Page No.90-96 of the memo of the petition, wherein vide order dated 14.08.2019, this Court had set aside the compromise decree dated 10.02.2018, in eFect for the reasons that the necessary parties in list had not ?led the compromise application and it was only the respondent No.1 along with her husband who had signed the application 14 and obtained the compromise decree of the property in question. It is further submitted that vide order dated 08.03.2019, on the very day of presentation of complaint petition, the learned Magistrate had ?xed the matter for pre-summoning evidence. On the very next date i.e. on 25.03.2019, the learned Court, realising that erroneously the case was ?xed for pre-summoning evidence and for just decision of the case calling of the Police preliminary investigation report would be essential, the matter was ?xed on 03.04.2019, for Police report. However, at around 3.00 p.m. on the same date i.e. on 25.03.2019, the complainant ?led an application to the eFect that the previous order-sheet does not reEect that the complainant is present along with two witnesses and relevant documents of the case. On such application, the learned trial Court clari?ed the order sheet that the present witnesses namely Sangita Thakur and Yogesh are present but they are being discharged without examination and a memo be issued to Station House O;cer for submission of preliminary report and the next date was ?xed for 03.04.2019. On 03.04.2019, an application was ?led by the Police authority praying for time for submission of investigation report. To this, the complainant/respondent No. 1 again ?led an application for recording her evidence stating that she had an apprehension that the accused persons could re-commit the oFence. Thereafter, the said application was allowed and the case was ?xed pre-summoning evidence on 06.04.2019 immediately after two days. On 06.04.2019 the pre- summoning evidence of Sarita Devi Jagatramka and Yogesh Kumar Jagatramka was recorded. Also, the Police authorities prayed for grant of time to ?le investigation report as the statement/version of complainant was yet to be recorded by the Police authorities. As such, the matter was posted on 12.04.2019. On 12.04.2019, the Police authorities informed 15 the learned Magistrate that although a notice has been issued to the complainant for recording her statement but the complainant and her husband are not co-operating in the preliminary investigation. On such a statement, the learned Magistrate directed the complainant to co-operate with the Police authority and the matter was posted for further hearing on 18.04.2019. Thereafter, on the same date, the complainant/respondent No. 1 ?led an application to the eFect that on 05.04.2019, she had sent her statement by post to the Police authorities. Also, the Hon'ble Court had already recorded her pre-summoning evidence, as such, calling of the preliminary investigation report would be of no purpose. Further, the complainant has also stated that the Police authorities of the City Kotwali threatening her to take her case back, else to falsely implicate her in false case. To this, the learned Magistrate Court observed that when the case was ?xed for submission of preliminary investigation report, it was only on the request of complainant, her pre-summoning evidence was recorded. Also, perusal of the Police preliminary investigation report is all the more necessary, as the complainant has made allegation against the Police o;cer that they are threatening her, as such, passing of order of registration of complaint without the investigation report would be improper. Thereafter, the matter was ?xed for hearing on 18.04.2019. On 18.04.2019, the complainant again made an allegation against Police authorities that they are continuously harassing the complainant to take back her complaint, however, the learned trial Court observed that the complainant has no prima-facie and clear foundation for making such allegation. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate issued strict direction to the Police authorities to submit their investigation report and the posted the matter for hearing on 02.05.2019. 19. Mr. Sharma further submits that on 02.05.2019, the Station House O;cer 16 due to him being occupied in another merg investigation duty, prayed for ?ling of preliminary investigation report on the next date of hearing. As such, in view of the order dated 27.04.2019, the learned Magistrate Court, as directed by the Revisional Court, recalled its order for submission of the Police investigation report and ?xed the matter for argument on the very next day i.e. on 03.05.2019. Thereafter, on the very next day i.e. on 03.05.2019, the Police authorities ?led an application for submission of preliminary investigation report and the case was ?xed for reply of the said application on 04.05.2019. Thereafter, on 04.05.2019, the complainant has ?led her objection in taking the Police investigation report and the learned Magistrate Court rejected the said application of the Police authorities on the ground that pursuant to the order of the learned Revisional Court, the order of calling of Police report has been recalled and the learned Magistrate Court has no authority to change the aforesaid order. Thereafter, vide order dated 10.05.2019, the learned Magistrate Court has registered the complaint case against the petitioners herein for commission of oFence punishable under Section 323, 294, 427 and 452 of IPC and straightway (instead of issuing a summon) issued an arrest warrant. The above fact would clearly show that the dubious role played by the respondent No.1 herein before the learned Magistrate Court in not only getting the complaint case registered but also directly getting to issue a warrant of arrest on the very ?rst occasion. 20. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that although the cognizance order dated 10.05.2019 passed by the Magistrate Court was challenged by some of the petitioners before the Revisional Court but the same was dismissed as withdrawn as the petitioners were advised to approach this Court to challenge the order dated 27.04.2019 17 as well as issuance of arrest warrant so as to protect their life and liberty. Although the some of the petitioners have ?led bail application before the learned trial Court on the ground that the learned Magistrate ought not to have issued straightaway a warrant of arrest in a summon case, which is in direct conEict with the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami (supra). However, the learned Sessions Court rejected the said contention observing that the aforesaid submission of the petitioners can be very well considered by the Magistrate Court. Therefore, the petitioners were advised to approach this Court to not only challenge the order of Revisional Court but also to challenge the issuance of arrest warrant so as to protect their life and liberty by way of ?ling a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is a separate and distinct remedy available to the petitioners and accordingly, the petitioners ?led W.P.(Cr) No. 270/2019, wherein vide order dated 27.06.2019, this Court was pleased to direct that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioners. 21. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. 22. By this petition, the petitioners seeks to challenge the order dated 27.04.2019 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, in Cr.R. No. 40/2019, which was ?led by the respondent No. 1/complainant whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, taking note of the fact that despite directing the police for four times to submit their report, no report was ?led and as such, directed the learned Magistrate to proceed further with the complaint case and further directed the Magistrate to recall the order directing the police to submit its report, and proceed under Sections 200 to 204 Cr.P.C. It is not in 18 dispute that despite directing the police on four occasions, no report was submitted by the police and as such, the respondent No. 1/complainant had no option but to ?le a revision in which, the learned Revisional Court after taking considering the facts and circumstances of the case, had rightly passed the order dated 27.04.2019. 23. The petitioners have also challenged the order dated 02.05.2019, 04.05.2019 and 10.05.2019 passed by the learned Magistrate, which were passed subsequent to the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, on 27.04.2019. By order dated 02.05.2019, the learned Magistrate has sought an explanation from the Station House O;cer for not submitting the report and the matter was directed to be listed on 03.05.2019 for arguments before registration of the complaint. On 04.05.2019, the Station House O;cer had made an application seeking permission to submit its report, which was objected to by the respondent No. 1. The Station House O;cer was directed to submit its report on 02.05.2019 but the same could not be done. The learned Magistrate had withdrawn the order directing the Police to submit its report in compliance of the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioners have not been able to point out any illegality or in?rmity in the aforesaid orders and as such, this Court upholds the orders dated 27.04.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the orders dated 02.05.2019 and 04.05.2019 passed by the learned Magistrate as the petitioners have failed to establish that any prejudice has been caused to them on passing of those orders. 24. Thereafter, by order dated 10.05.2019, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the matter and directed for registration of a criminal case against the petitioners under Section 323, 294, 427, 452 of the IPC and 19 also directed issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioners. Prima facie, there appears to be su;cient materials against the petitioners for registration of the complaint case and as such, the order dated 10.05.2019, passed by the learned Magistrate, so far it relates to taking of cognizance is concerned, is upheld. 25. Without entering into the merits of the allegations made in the complaint, which are yet to be adjudicated by the competent Court, this Court is of the considered view that the only issue that can be considered by this Court at this stage is that whether, in a complaint case, warrant of arrest could have been issued against the petitioners directly when in fact, the learned trial Court should ?rstly have issued summons to the petitioners for their appearance. 26. It is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswami (supra) and a catena of subsequent decisions that issuance of non-bailable warrants at the initial stage of taking cognizance in a complaint case should be an exception and not the rule, particularly in cases triable as summons cases. The Magistrate is required to exercise judicial discretion and ordinarily ought to issue summons in the ?rst instance, unless special reasons exist justifying issuance of warrants. 27. In the present case, from a bare perusal of the order dated 10.05.2019 passed by the learned JMFC, Raigarh, it prima facie appears that after registration of the complaint case, the learned Magistrate proceeded to issue arrest warrants against the petitioners directly, without recording any speci?c reasons as to why issuance of summons would not su;ce. Such a course, at least at the threshold stage, requires closer scrutiny. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the chequered history of litigation between the parties, and considering that the 20 petitioners were earlier granted protection by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(Cr.) No.370/2019, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if an interim protection is granted to the petitioners for a period of two weeks from today by staying the eFect and operation of the said order and restraining the police from arresting the petitioners so as to enable the petitioners to avail appropriate legal remedies before the competent Court. 28. 28. Accordingly, it is directed that the eFect and operation of the order dated 10.05.2019 passed by the learned JMFC, Raigarh in Complaint Case No. 332/2019 to the extent it directs issuance of arrest/non-bailable warrants against the petitioners, shall remain stayed for a period of two weeks from today. During the said period of two weeks, the petitioners shall not be arrested by the Police and the petitioners would be at liberty to take recourse to appropriate remedies available to them under law, before the competent Court, which shall consider the same independently and in accordance with law, uninEuenced by any observations made herein. 29. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of. 30. O;ce is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance, forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar / Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.01.18 11:31:19 +0530