1 2026:CGHC:19999 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 321 of 2022 • State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station - Tumgaon, District - Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh). ... Appellant versus • Uttam Khairwar, S/o Panchram Khairwar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Birbira, Police Station Tumgaon, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh). ... Respondent For Appellant/ State : Mr. Anand Gupta, Dy. Govt. Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. A. Sandhya Rao, Advocate. SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment On Board 29/04/2026 1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 03/08/2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.S-2744/2016 (Crime No.138/2016), whereby, the respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 507 of IPC. CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Date: 2026.04.29 19:11:15 +0530 2 2) From perusal of the record, it appears that the complainant- Rupesh Kumar Dhritlahre of village Jalki, Tumgaon was working as a Dakpal, who on the date of incident, i.e. 02/06/2016, went to the main Post Office at Mahasamund for collecting money under the scheme of MNREGA, but has received frequent threat messages by Mobile No.7049002431 on his mobile for snatching money and to kill and was threatened for dire consequences, if he will not call him immediately. It appears from his alleged report (Ex.P-1), lodged on 13/06/2016, that a report to this effect was earlier lodged by him on 06/06/2016 before the Police Station Tumgaon, but when no action was taken, therefore, he lodged the alleged report before the Superintendent of Police of District Mahasamund and after holding an inquiry with regard to the said report/application, an FIR (Ex.P-8) was registered against the respondent- Uttam Khairwar, as he threatened the complainant-Rupesh Kumar Dhritlahre on 02/06/2016 saying “ क्या बे नौकरी करीनौ है किक नौहै , तुरीतु कल करी नौहै तु जलक आओगे तु थप्पड़ पड़गे" and during the investigation, the alleged Mobile No.7049002431 was seized from the possession of the respondent vide Ex.P-3 on 16/10/2016, in presence of two witnesses, namely, Arjun Khairwar and Bhushan Sahu. Call details for the said period was produced vide Ex.P-5 and the alleged Mobile No.7049002431 was found to be owned by one Mr. Sanni Deval Khadiya based upon the subscriber details (Ex.P-6) and, after completion of usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the concerned trial court, where based upon the materials available on record, the respondent has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence 3 mentioned herein-above, which was denied by him and claimed to be tried. 3) It is to be seen that the alleged mobile, i.e. Mobile No.7049002431 was recovered from the accused on 16/10/2016 vide Ex.P-3, however, as revealed from the statement of Awadh Jain (PW-4), who was the Nodal Officer of Vodafone Idea Limited, Raipur that the information regarding the call details and the owner of the alleged Mobile No.7049002431 was furnished on 15/07/2016, even prior to the notice dated 04/11/2016 issued by the concerned Police Station. Be that as it may, the concerned police authorities came to know after 04/11/2016 that the alleged mobile was owned by said Sanni Deval Khadiya, but even prior to that, the alleged action has been taken against the respondent even without explaining any reasons for it. 4) It is to be seen further that after registering the FIR (Ex.P-8) on 19/08/2016, the statement under 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded of said Sanni Deval Khadiya on 20/08/2016 and the concerned police authorities were, thus, aware on 20/08/2016 with regard to the fact that he (Sanni Deval Khadiya) was the owner of the alleged mobile, yet a notice (Ex.P-10) was issued to the respondent-Uttam Khairwar under Section 91 Cr.P.C. asking him regarding the owner of the alleged mobile. It is to be seen further that in the alleged notice (Ex.P-10), an endorsement, marked as ‘C’ to ‘C’, has been made wherein, it was admitted by the respondent that he was utilizing the alleged mobile of him (Sanni Deval Khadiya) and called and issued SMS to the complainant- Rupesh Kumar Dhritlahre on 02/06/2016 4 on his Mobile No.7617716395. Though, the alleged endorsement is made therein as such, but according to the statement of the Investigating Officer (PW-5), it appears that the alleged portion has not been written by him. As such, it cannot be said that the alleged confession was made by him before the said Investigating Officer. 5) It appears further, as revealed from the statement of Sanni Deval Khadiya (PW-2), that before going to Hyderabad, he has handed over the alleged of his mobile to the respondent, but no document has, however, been placed on record showing that he went to Hyderabad, therefore, the statement of him that he handed over the alleged of his mobile to the respondent, has rightly been disbelieved. 6) Pertinently to be noted here further that the alleged threat call was received by the complainant-Rupesh Kumar Dhritlahre on 02/06/2016, when he went to the Main Post Office at Mahasamund for collecting the money under the scheme of MNREGA, but no report as such has, however, been lodged by him immediately thereafter and instead, it was revealed from his alleged written report (Ex.P-1) that a report to this effect was made by him on 06/06/2016 before the Police Station Tumgaon and when no action was taken, the said report (Ex.P-1) was, therefore, lodged before the Superintendent of Police, Mahasamund on 13/06/2016. However, in order to establish the said fact, no document as such with regard to lodging the report on 06/06/2016 has been placed on record. Even otherwise, after receiving the alleged threat on 02/06/2016, neither a report was lodged immediately thereafter and, nor any explanation has been offered as to why the report mentioned in his report 5 (Ex.P-1) was made on 06/06/2016 after receiving the alleged threat on 02/06/2016 nor even any explanation has been offered why he kept silent for the further period of 7 days, when no action was taken on his said report, made on 06/06/2016. 7) Considering the aforesaid discrepancies, made during the investigation proceedings, coupled with non-explanation of the reasons in lodging the report much after the occurrence of the alleged incident, the trial court has, therefore, not committed any illegality, after taking note of those facts, acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 8) The appeal, being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Chandrakant