1 CGHC010157142025 2026:CGHC:31366 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 465 of 2025 1 - Mrs. Mangla Deshmukh W/o Late Shri Rajesh Deshmukh Aged About 58 Years Through Atul Deshmukh S/o Late Shri Rajesh Deshmukh, Aged About 36 Years (Power Of Attorney Holder For Mrs. Mangla Deshmukh) Both Presently Residing At Lig, Mukta Nagar, Padmanabhpur, Durg (C.G.) Both Are Permanent Residents Of Deshmukh Bada, In Front Of Sumit Bazar, Station Road, Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Rahul Deshmukh S/o Late Vikas Deshmukh R/o Deshmukh Bada, Station Road, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 2 - Gaurav Deshmukh S/o Late Vikas Deshmukh R/o Deshmukh Bada, Station Road, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 3 - Versha Jeebhkate D/o Late Vikas Deshmukh R/o Deshmukh Bada, Station Road, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 4 - Ankita Deshmukh D/o Late Vikas Deshmukh R/o Deshmukh Bada, Station Road, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 5 - Prabha Deshmukh W/o Late Vikas Deshmukh R/o Deshmukh Bada, Station Road, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 2 6 - Vikrant Deshmukh S/o Subhash Deshmukh R/o Deshmukh Bada, Station Road, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 7 - Priyanka Deshmukh W/o Vikrant Deshmukh R/o Deshmukh Bada, Station Road, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 8 - Dharmendra Deshmukh S/o Late Subhash Deshmukh R/o Deshmukh Bada, Station Road, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 9 - Sonali Nikhade D/o Late Subhash Deshmukh R/o Deshmukh Bada, Station Road, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 10 - Manjusha Kamde D/o Late Subhash Deshmukh R/o Deshmukh Bada, Station Road, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 11 - Jyoti Deshmukh W/o Late Anil Deshmukh R/o Deshmukh Bada, Station Road, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 12 - Sunil Deshmukh S/o Late Nemichand Deshmukh R/o Deshmukh Bada, Station Road, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 13 - Chaitanya Deshmukh S/o Sunil Deshmukh R/o Deshmukh Bada, Station Road, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 14 - Savita Kapse D/o Late Nemichand Deshmukh R/o Deshmukh Bada, Station Road, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 15 - Amit Chopkar S/o Late Ganshyam Chopkar R/o Deshmukh Bada, Station Road, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 16 - Manish Kamlakar Mahajan S/o Late Kamlakar Mahajan R/o Deshmukh Bada, Station Road, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 3 17 - Tarendra Jain (Advocate)(Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 09-07-2025. 18 - Shubham Singh (Advocate) (Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 09-07-2025. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Atul Deshmukh, Power of Attorney Holder For Respondents : None present (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Order on Board 22/07/2026 The present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 CPC, 1908 seeking for the following reliefs: “10.1. That the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for the records of the case bearing No. MJC Criminal 828 of 2024 and decide the applications which were Annexure P/1. 10.2 That the respondent/NA’s “appearance memo” and subsequent pleadings be quashed for its improper and criminal and fraudulent nature. 10.3. That the appropriate agency be directed to lodge an FIR and investigate the matter against the respondent/NA’s criminally offensive “appearance memo “ and their subsequent pleadings in the case bearing No. MJC Cri. No. 828/2024. 10.4 That the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow any other relief as they may deem fit.” 2. Mr. Atul Deshmukh, Power of Attorney holder of the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has preferred an application under Section 4 12 read with Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, registered as MJC (Cr.) No. 828/2024. It is contended that several interlocutory applications filed by the petitioner remain pending consideration, and despite the same, the learned trial Court has merely adjourned the proceedings without adjudicating upon any of the pending applications. He submits that this Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, may itself decide the pending applications. 3. It is further submitted that the respondents have entered appearance before the learned trial Court by filing a memo of appearance purportedly on behalf of all sixteen non-applicants, whereas the memo bears the signatures of only eight of them. According to the petitioner, the remaining eight non-applicants have neither signed the memo of appearance nor authorized their representation. It is further contended that an objection in this regard was raised on 03.12.2024 however, although ex parte proceedings have been drawn against the concerned non-applicants, no action has been initiated against the persons who allegedly appeared without due authority. On the aforesaid premise, it is prayed that appropriate directions be issued for registration of an FIR against the persons responsible and for taking action against them in accordance with law. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment in Bhagwan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 18885/2024, 5 decided on 20.09.2024. 4. I have heard the Power of Attorney holder appearing for the petitioner and have carefully perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that the applications filed in MJC (Cr.) No. 828/2024 have not yet been decided by the learned trial Court, and, therefore, this Court should invoke its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to adjudicate upon the same. While exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot invoke the inherent powers under Section 151 CPC so as to assume the jurisdiction of the subordinate Court and decide applications which are admittedly pending before it. The scope of jurisdiction under Article 227 is confined to ensuring that the subordinate Courts act within the bounds of their authority and in accordance with law. It is, therefore, for the learned trial Court to consider and decide the pending applications on their own merits. 6. With regard to the contention that the memo of appearance bears the signatures of only eight out of sixteen non-applicants, it is to be noted that a memo of appearance merely contains a declaration by the advocate that he has been duly authorized to appear on behalf of the parties concerned. It is distinct from a vakalatnama, which constitutes the formal authority executed by a litigant in favour of an advocate. Once the counsel declares that he has been authorized by his clients, 6 the absence of signatures on the memo of appearance, by itself, does not render such appearance invalid. Moreover, as per the petitioner's own submissions, the learned trial Court has already proceeded ex parte against those persons whose signatures do not find place in the memo of appearance. Consequently, this Court finds no merit in the submissions advanced on this issue. 7. Insofar as the prayer seeking a direction for registration of an FIR against the persons alleged to have acted without authority is concerned, such a direction cannot be issued by this Court while exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Accordingly, no case warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. However, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the proceedings and decide all pending applications filed by the parties concerned. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.07.27 11:12:42 +0530