1 2026:CGHC:25063 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1700 of 2022 L.P Sharma S/o Jwalaprasad Sharma, Aged About 64 Years, R/o House No. 109, Arihant Nagar, Sarona, Ring Road No. 1, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Surajpur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Rathore, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Ms. Monika Singh Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19.06.2026 1. Heard Mr. Siddharth Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. Monika Singh Thakur, P.L. appearing for the State/respondent. 2. By filing the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), the petitioner has SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.06.22 14:56:05 +0530 2 prayed for following relief :- “ It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow this petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 16.06.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G) in Criminal Revision No. 06/2020, in the interest of justice”. 3. Brief facts of the case are that pursuant to instructions from the competent authority of the State, an inquiry was conducted by the Superintending Engineer (Rural Engineering Service, Office of the Development Commissioner, Raipur regarding construction of a stop- dam on the Sutiya canal in Gram Panchayat Pampapur under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. The said inquiry revealed certain financial irregularities and causing of loss to the State exchequer. Subsequently, upon a written complaint filed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Sarguja, with the Station House Officer, Surajpur, an FIR was registered against the material supplier, Sub-Engineer, and Assistant Engineer mentioned in the complaint for offenses punishable under Section 409 read with Section 34 of the IPC, 1860. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused persons before the trial court for offenses punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 & 471 read with Section 34 of IPC. 4. During the trial of the said case, an application was moved by the prosecution agency before the trial court u/s 319 of the CrPC praying that the petitioner, the then Executive Engineer and another engineer K.D. Banaudhe also be made accused. Upon hearing the said application, the trial court passed the impugned order on 30.11.2018, 3 stating that the names of the petitioner and and K.D. Banaudhe appeared in the inquiry report submitted by the Superintending Engineer and that their signatures were visible on the documents; consequently, the trial Court ordered the issuance of summons to the petitioner L.P. Sharma and K.D. Banaudhe, as accused persons in the case. 5. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2018 passed by the trial Court, the petitioner has preferred the revision u/s 397 read with Section 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. A separate application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, has also been filed seeking condonation of long delay of more than 15 months in filing the revision petition. The learned revisional court dismissed the revision being barred by limitation. Hence, this petition u/s 482 of CrPC before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without hearing the petitioner, the learned trial Court has passed the order dated 30.11.2018 allowing the application u/s 319 of CrPC and directed to implead the petitioner as accused. He contends that such an order under Section 319 of the CrPC impleading a person as an accused without a hearing is arbitrary and illegal as it violates the principles of natural justice. He further contends that summarily dismissing a subsequent revision petition by impugned order dated 16.06.2021 mainly on the ground of limitation without properly assessing the explanation for delay deprives the petitioner of a fair judicial review. It is, further submitted that in absence of any incriminating material, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is wholly unjustified 4 and amounts to abuse of the process of law, therefore, the impugned order be set aside. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the orders of the courtd below do not warrant any interference by this Court and accordingly prays for dismissal of the petition. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record. 9. A perusal of the the impugned order dated 16.06.2021 and 30.11.2018 at a glance would go to show that upon hearing the application moved by the prosecution agency, the trial court passed the order dated 30.11.2018, impleading the petitioner as an accused under Section 319 of the CrPC and issuing summons to secure his presence. Subsequently, bailable warrants were repeatedly issued for the petitioner’s appearance on scheduled hearing dates; however, despite the case having been pending since 2012 and summons/warrants being issued on 11 hearing dates, the petitioner failed to appear. Consequently, the trial court declared him an absconder, issued a permanent warrant, and proceeded with further action. The revisional Court observed that these circumstances indicate that the petitioner deliberately evaded appearance before the trial court, and the claim that he was unaware of the impugned order and the reasons assigned for the delay in filing the revision do not appear credible and accordingly dismissed the revision being barred by limitation. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts situation of the case and on careful 5 consideration of the material placed on record, this Court does not find any illegality, procedural perversity, or abuse of process in the orders of courts below that would justify interference under the inherent or revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 11. Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed. 12. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information, forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Sourabh P.