Anurag Bhadauriya Vs Ramesh Chandra Gulati

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:5082

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRMP No. 326 of 2025

¶6

1 - Anurag Bhadauriya S/o S.K. Singh Bhadoriya, Aged About 36 Years Food Controller, Food Office Collectorate Bilaspur (C.G.).

¶7

2 - Rajeev Kumar Jaiswal S/o Late Ram Ratan Jaiswal Aged About 57 Years Joint Secretary, Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.).

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Ramesh Chandra Gulati S/o Late Banarasi Das, Aged About 65 Years President Employee Union, Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, R/o 30/2817 Shankar Nagar Raipur (C.G.).

¶11

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Raakhi, District - Raipur (C.G.).

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Sr. Advocate with Shri Sandeep Yadav, Advocate. For the State : Ms. Priya Sharma, Panel Lawyer.

¶14

Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

28/01/2025

¶17

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard finally.

¶18

2

¶19

The petitioners have preferred the present petition for quashing the order dated 07/12/2023 and order dated 12/07/2023 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. (unregistered) before the Court of Judicial Magitrate First Class, Raipur.

¶20

The brief facts of the case is that the respondent Ramesh Chandra Gulati who claimed himself as a President of Employ Union, filed a complaint case against the present petitioners on 18/04/2023 under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. with prayer to arrest the petitioners for offence under section 306 of I.P.C. learned Magistrate had called the enquiry report from the concerned police station and after examine the concerned report and material available in the case diary, on 12/07/2023, rejected the application filed under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. by the respondent herein but started the proceedings under the chapter 15 of the Cr.P.C. for which no application was filed under section 200 of Cr.P.C. by the present respondent and taken the cognizance and recorded the statement of the complainant/respondent which is against the settled principal of law.

¶21

Being aggrieved by the order dated 12/07/2023, the present respondent/complainant had preferred a revision with the prayer that his application filed under section 156(3) has been dismissed, without opportunity of hearing and learned court has started the proceedings under chapter 15 of Cr.P.C. for which he did not moved any application but same was rejected vide order dated 05/02/2024.

¶22

After rejection of the above mentioned revision preferred by the present respondent, on 21/08/2024 preliminary evidence of the present

¶23

3

¶24

respondent was recorded by the learned magistrate against the settled principle of law.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Ukand Rao Wankhede @ Yogesh Wankhede has committed suicide on 20/09/2022. Merg inquiry was conducted by the Police under Section 174 of CrPC and found that there is no abatement of suicide, therefore, Police has not registered an FIR against the petitioners. One Shri Ramesh Chandra Gulati has filed an application under Section 156 (3) of CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur. Learned Magistrate sent a letter to the Police to investigate the matter and Police has investigated the matter as per Annexure-P/5. As per suicidal note of deceased “्ቚति� माननीय मुख्यमं्ቔी छ्ቈीसगढ शासन, वि�षयः- आत्महत्या करने बाब�्। महोदय, सादर ्ቚणाम मै उकाण्ड रा� �ानखेडे 01.04.2017 से नागरिरक खा्ቕ आपूቔኌ� ए�ं उपभो्ሹा सं० इं्ቖा��ी भ�न न�ा रायपुर में दैविनक �े�न भोगी चालक के पद पर काय7र� था........ मेरे आत्महत्या करने के कारण अति�रिर्ሹ संचालक ्ቦी राजी� कुमार जायस�ाल है.... मुझे खा्ቕ वि�भाग ने मानसिसक रूप से ्ቚ�ातिड� विकया गया। माननीय आत्महत्या करने का फैसला लेने से पहले खा्ቕ वि�भाग के संबंति@� अति@कारिरयों विमल के विगडविगडाया रोया भी लेविकन विकसी ने मेरी एक न सुनी। ्ቦीमान् मेरे परिर�ार का मेरे शिश�ाये कोई नही है मुझे खा्ቕ वि�भाग ने सासिजस करके नौकरी से विनकाल विदया हैं, अंति�म समय में ई्ቫर से यह ्ቚथा7ना कर�ा हूं विक सिजन्होने मेरे साथ गल� विकया उनको भग�ान दूसरों साथ ऐसा करने की स्ቒुतिK दे। जय जोहार, जय छ्ቈीसगढ .......।"

¶26

In-charge Police Station Rakhi, District- Raipur has sent a report before the Magistrate in which it is mentioned that there is no cognizable offence made out against the petitioners, on that basis learned Judicial Magistrate First Class rejected the application filed by the complainant

¶27

4

¶28

under Section 156 (3) of CrPC on 12/07/2023. However, learned Magistrate has directed the complainant to produce preliminary evidence before the Court, meaning thereby treated as the complaint under Section 200 of CrPC. At this juncture, no order has been passed by the Magistrate against the petitioners.

¶29

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 came into force on 01/07/2024 and there is two provisions under Section 223 (1) proviso that no cognizance offence wshall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused and opportunity of being heard. It is also pertinent to mention here that petitioner is a government servant Additional Director as provision contained in Section 21 of the IPC [2 (28) of BNS] and Section 223 (2) also provides that a Magistrate shall not take cognizance on a complaint against a public servant for any offence alleged to have been committed in course of the discharge of his official functions or duties. Therefore, this petition is disposed of with a direction that the provision of BNSS has already been effective, therefore, Magistrate shall give an opportunity to the petitioners before taking cognizance against the petitioners.

¶30

In view of above, this CRMP is disposed of.

¶31

Sd/-Sd/-

¶32

( Arvind Kumar Verma ) JUDGE

¶33

NARESHKUMAR Digitally signedby NARESHKUMAR KAMDEDate: 2025.01.31 KAMDE 10:33:08 +0530

¶34

Kamde

Anurag Bhadauriya v. Ramesh Chandra Gulati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anurag Bhadauriya v. Ramesh Chandra Gulati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uma Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vinod Kumar Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Yogesh Kumar Sahu Vs Raju Singh Thakur

Tijiya Malik Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Krishna Banjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jai Maa Karma Mahila Swa-Sahayata Samooh, Bahihnga, Vs Madam Divya Potai