Suman Khakha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

3 - Miss Jenebiba Kindo D/o Piysh Kindo, Aged About 57 Years Member Sachiv C.G. State Food Commission (I A S) R/o Sector 17- D 9 - 10 Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4 - Jagarnath Verma S/o Late Rameshwer Verma, Aged About 48 Years Occupation - Service S.D.O. Revenue Pratappur R/o Pratappur, Police Station Pratappur, District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

For Applicant :	Shri Krishna Tandon, Advocate.
For Respondent No.2&3:	Shri Amit Soni, Advocate.
For State :	Shri K.K. Bahrani, Panel Lawyer.

¶16

Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board

¶17

08.10.2025

¶18

1 . The present Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of CrPC has been filed by the applicant against the impugned order dated 03.03.2020 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja, in Criminal Revision No.94/2018 whereby

¶19

2

¶20

the Criminal Revision filed by the respondents No.2 to 4 has been allowed and the order dated 03.04.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur in Complaint Case No.476/2017 with respect to respondents No.2 to 4 have been set aside.

¶21

2 . The present applicant is the complainant in complaint case No.476/2017. He filed a complaint case on 30.07.2011 under Section 200 of CrPC for the offence under Sections 120-B, 506-B, 452,346,365 and 368 of IPC against the proposed 15 accused persons including the present respondents No.2 to 4. It is alleged in the complaint case that the present applicant was working as Priest at Nani Ashram, Sargawa. The land of Nani Ashram was recorded in the name of Bhandur Selar who executed a Will in favour of Nani Ashram. In the year, 2000, Bisof Patras Minj and Father Xavier Ekka sold the land of Khasra No.870 Area 1 Acre of the said property of Nani Ashram to his own driver Sushil Minj for a consideration of Rs.60,000/- and executed a registered sale deed for his own interest. The applicant and his witness Vijay Bada objected and then offence under Section 420/34 IPC vide Crime No.338/2009 was registered. Being aggrieved by said registration of FIR, the proposed accused Patras Minj along with other accused persons committed marpeet with complainant on 29.06.2009 and after kidnapping him he was being thrown from the bridge of Mahan River. The applicant filed a complaint case before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, in which the statement of complainant was to be recorded on 15.09.2009, however, all the proposed accused persons conspired and on 13.09.2009 at about 2:30-3:00 PM they kidnapped the complainant from Nani Ashram, took

¶22

3

¶23

him to Bisof House, Nawapara and confined him in a room. On the same night, the proposed accused Patras Minj and present respondents No.2 to 4 pressurized the complainant to left Surguja district and return back to his native place. When the complainant refused, the present respondents No.2 to 4 asked Patras Minj to left him otherwise any untoward incident of rioting may occur and then only the complainant was released from the clutches of accused persons. On 27.11.2010 he could reach to Nani Ashram and informed the police and then only the offence of Crime No.382/2010 was registered against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 365, 346,506 and 120-B IPC on 02.12.2010. The police proceeded closure report. However, the Magistrate refused to accept the closure report and directed the police for its proper investigation. Since the police was not investigating the matter in proper manner, the complainant filed the present complaint case.

¶24

3 . Initially on 05.05.2012 the trial court after considering the material available in the case and after recording statement of complainant and his witnesses, dismissed the complaint case stating that there is no sufficient evidence available on record to take cognizance of offence against the proposed accused persons. The order dated 05.05.2012 was challenged by the complainant before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur in Criminal Revision No.93 of 2012 which was allowed vide order dated 17.05.2013 and the matter was remitted back to the trial court for its reconsideration. Thereafter, the matter was again considered by the trial court and vide order dated 03.04.2017 the complaint case filed by the complainant was ordered to be registered

¶25

4

¶26

and cognizance have been taken for the offence under Sections 365,368,452,34 and 506-II IPC against the accused persons including the present respondents No.2 to 4.

¶27

4 . The said order dated 03.04.2017 was challenged by the respondents No.2 to 4 before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur in Criminal Revision No.94 of 2018 which was allowed vide order 03.03.2020 and complaint case and cognizance against the respondents No.2 to 4 taken by the trial court have been quashed, which is under challenge in the present Criminal Revision filed by the complainant.

¶28

5 . Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the order passed by the revisional court is bad in law and not liable to be sustained. There is sufficient evidence against the respondents No.2 to 4 that they in collusion with other accused person committed the offence. The respondents No.2 to 4 cannot take benefit that they were discharging their duties and they are not liable for any consequence of their duties. He would further submit that the complainant and other witnesses have clearly stated in their statement about involvement of respondents No.2 to 4. At the time of registration of complaint and taking cognizance of the offence, only prima facie evidence is to be seen for registration of complaint, irrespective of the fact as to whether it would converted into conviction or acquittal. The revisional court allowed the revision filed by the respondents No.2 to 4 on the ground that by the order passed by the SDM, Ambikapur in MJC Criminal No.185/2009 dated 07.09.2009, though the Tehsildar was ordered to remove possession of complainant from Nani Ashram, but he was removed from the land of his own

¶29

5

¶30

ownership and that was not part of his official duty. The revisional court has exceeded its jurisdiction while granting relief to the respondents No.2 to 4 and quashing the complaint case against them. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the revisional court may be set aside.

¶31

6 . On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.2&3 opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant and have submitted that there was no sufficient evidence against these respondents that they also involved in the dispute between the complainant and other accused persons. It is a dispute between the complainant and other accused persons with respect to property of Nani Ashram for which the order passed by the SDM was executed for vacating the land of Nani Ashram. The complainant was in illegal possession of the land and only to defend his possession over the land of Nani Ashram, he made allegation against the present respondents not to execute the order of SDM. In the complaint there is no allegation against the respondents, however, it discloses that on the instance of these respondents, the complainant was released from the clutches of other accused persons. After a detailed consideration by the revisional court, the revision filed by them was allowed, in which there is no illegality or infirmity and the revisional court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction in quashing the complaint case against the present respondents.

¶32

7 . I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record of trial court.

¶33

8 . From perusal of complaint filed by the complainant it discloses that there was some dispute between the complainant and other accused

¶34

6

¶35

persons with respect to land of Nani Ashram. The present respondent No.2 is Bisof. The respondent No.3 was Deputy Commissioner Surguja Division, Surguja and respondent No.4 was Tehsildar Ambikapur, District Surguja on the date of incident. It transpires that on the complaint made by the complainant an FIR of Crime No.382/2010 was registered at Police Station Gandhinagar with respect to his kidnapping, however, the said FIR was proceeded for closure and a closure report was submitted by the Police. In that closure report, the statement of complainant was recorded on 17.02.2011 in which he has stated that on 13.09.2009 when the incident of kidnapping was occurred, he was the Priest. When prayer meet was going on at Nani Ashram, at that time Tehsildar Ambikapur came there and asked him to vacate the premises. When he asked for sometime, they kidnapped him and took him to Bisof house Ambikapur. At Bisof House, the Tehsildar and Kindo Madam asked the Bisof Patraj Minj to take him to any other place as riots may take place if he would be kept there at Ambikapur and then the complainant was being taken to any other place. In that closure report, the investigating officer have stated that on 13.09.2009 by the order of SDM, the Tehsildar Jagannath Verma and his other subordinate employees got the premises of Nani Ashram vacated from the complainant. He also stated that Bisof house is a Transit house where the members of Christian community are stayed and the said house is being considered as a Rest House.

¶36

9 . The complainant has admitted in his statement that the land of Nani Ashram is owned by one Bhandul Selar who is residing at Belgium and he is not having any ownership over Nani Ashram. The revisional court

¶37

7

¶38

has also considered that the Tehsildar was executing the order of SDM, Ambikapur, passed on 07.09.2009 in MJC Criminal No.185/2009. This fact was also admitted by the complainant, thus, it can be considered that Tehsildar Ambikapur was discharging his duty under the order of SDM. The Tehsildar was under obligation to execute the order of his superior authority which includes vacating the land, handing over the possession and recovery of arrears of land revenue etc. Therefore, if the government officers are being prosecuted in such manner, there would be difficulty to maintain law & order situation throughout the country and they have allowed the revision filed by the respondents No.2 to 4.

¶39

10. In the matter of “Krishna Lal Chawla and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another”, 2021 (5) SCC 435, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that it is the constitutional duty of the Court to nip frivolous litigation in the bud even before it reaches the stage of trial and this would not only save judicial time but would also protect the right to liberty that every person is entitled to under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In paragraphs 18, 21 and 22 of its judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:

¶40

“8. The aforesaid powers bestowed on the Magistrate have grave repercussions on individual citizens’ life and liberty. Thus, these powers also confer great responsibility on the shoulders of the Magistrate – and must be exercised with great caution, and after suitable judicial application of mind. Observations in a similar vein were made by this Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749:

¶41

“28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only twowitnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case

¶42

8

¶43

and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.” (emphasis supplied) This Court, thus, clearly emphasised that the power to issue a summoning order is a matter of grave importance, and that the Magistrate must only allow criminal law to take its course after satisfying himself that there is a real case to be made.

¶44

All of this leads to one inescapable conclusion. That the Trial Judge has a duty under the Constitution and the CrPC, to identify and dispose of frivolous litigation at an early stage by exercising, substantially and to the fullest extent, the powers conferred on him. This Court has earlier emphasised on the high degree of responsibility shouldered by the trial Judges in All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India, (1992) 1 SCC119. Ranganath Misra CJ (as he was then) writing for himself and two others stated:

¶45

“42. The trial Judge is the kingpin in the hierarchical system of administration of justice. He directly comes in contact with the litigant during the proceedings in Court. On him lies the responsibility of building up of the case appropriately and on his understanding of the matter the cause of justice is first answered. The personality, knowledge, judicial restraint, capacity to maintain dignity are the additional aspects which go into making the Court's functioning successful.”

¶46

Frivolous litigation should not become the order of the day in India. From misusing the Public Interest Litigation jurisdiction of the Indian courts to abusing the criminal procedure for harassing their adversaries, the justice delivery system should not be used as a tool to fulfil personal vendetta. The Indian judiciary has taken cognizance of this issue. In 2014, this Court elucidated as follows, the plight of a litigant caught in the cobweb of frivolous proceedings in Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India, (2014) 8 SCC 470:

¶47

“191…One needs to keep in mind, that in the process of litigation, there is an innocent sufferer on the other side, of every irresponsible and senseless

¶48

9

¶49

claim. He suffers long drawn anxious periods of nervousness and restlessness, whilst the litigation is pending, without any fault on his part. He pays for the litigation, from out of his savings (or out of his borrowings), worrying that the other side may trick him into defeat, for no fault of his. He spends invaluable time briefing counsel and preparing them for his claim. Time which he should have spent at work, or with his family, is lost, for no fault of his...” While the Court’s ruling pertained to civil proceedings, these observations ring true for the criminal justice machinery as well. We note, with regret, that 7 years hence, and there has still been no reduction in such plight. A falsely accused person not only suffers monetary damages but is exposed to disrepute and stigma from society. While running from pillar to post to find a lawyer to represent his case and arranging finances to defend himself before the court of law, he loses a part of himself.” 11. From perusal of statement of witnesses as well as documents filed

¶50

along with complaint case by the complainant, this court finds that consideration of learned revisional court is absolutely justified, qua the present respondents No.2 to 4 and there was no sufficient evidence against these respondents in the complaint case to prosecute them and to take cognizance of the offence against them. This court finds it difficult to interfere with the criminal revision filed by the applicant exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Read with Section 401 CrPC conferred upon this court.

¶51

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision filed by the complainant is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶52

Sd/(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶53

inder

Suman Khakha v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suman Khakha v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sadhna Kothari Vs Badgaiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd.

Dey Narayan Singh Vs Jai Majisa Hardware

Tulsa Kora Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kundan Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

G. Babu Rao Vs Shanti Vijay Traders & Another

Union of India Vs Smt. Kasturi Sharma