1 2026:CGHC:6442 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 380 of 2026 1 - Rekha Agrawal W/o Late Lokesh Agrawal Aged About 58 Years Main Road Ushapada, Tikri, District- Raigada (Odisha) Current Address Main Road, Pathalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Rina Mallik W/o Shyamal Malik Aged About 55 Years Agrasen Bhawan, Durpa Road Korba, District Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 05/02/2026 1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, against the order dated 12.11.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge FTC (POSCO), Korba, District – Korba (C.G.) in Criminal Revision Case No. 33/2025 arising out of order dated 08.07.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba in Criminal Case No. 246/2024, whereby under Section 274 of BNSS HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.02.06 10:39:47 +0530 2 has been upheld. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent has filed a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the petitioner, before the JMFC, Korba, alleging that the petitioner has stopped the cheque issued in favour of the respondent (complainant), which has been issued on the pretext of the Rent for the period of August 2022 to August 2023 (Annexure P-2). After hearing the parties, the learned JMFC has framed the charges under Section 274 of BNSS, and the plea of the accusation has been prepared vide order dated 08.07.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the revision before the learned additional Sessions Judge, against the order dated 08.07.2025 and vide impugned order dated 12.11.2025, the learned revisional Court has rejected the revision filed by the petitioner and upheld the order of the learned JMFC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned JMFC, vide order dated 08.07.2025, has framed the charges in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 274 of the BNSS, 2023, as while framing the charges, the learned trial Court has failed to record the defence of the accused, i.e., the petitioner, which is the mandatory requirement of Section 274 of the Act. He further submits that the impugned charges have been recorded in pre 3 mechanized manner, in a typographical manner. Therefore, there is a violation of the mandatory provision of Section 274 of the BNSS. As such, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 4. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition including the impugned order. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the plea recorded in pre mechanized manner, in a typographical manner, which is a violation of provision of Section 274 of BNSS, 2023. 6. Section 274 of BNSS, 2023 states as under: 274. Substance of accusation to be stated.- When in a summons-case the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, the particulars of the offence of which he is accused shall be stated to him, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make, but it shall not be necessary to frame a formal charge: 7. Looking to the provisions of Section 274 of BNSS, it is clear that it provides the provision of pleading guilty or having any defence to make on the part of the accused, and not the procedure for writing the statement of the accused. Also, looking to the trial Court order dated 08.07.2025, in which it has been clearly mentioned that when the accused 4 denied the charges and requested a trial, the accused’s plea was recorded in his own words. As such, the revisional Court’s order does not reveal any illegality or irregularity in it, nor is the said order improper. The said impugned order of the revision Court is legal; there is no illegality, therefore, this Court does not find it appropriate to interfere with the order impugned. 8. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed at admission stage. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) H.L. Sahu Judge