Xyz Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.08.14 19:26:49 +0530 2 - Indresh Kumar Rai S/o Rajendra Rai Aged About 39 Years Resident Of Sakin Aamhariya, P.S.- Kanker, District- Arbal (Bihar), At Present Resident Of N.E. Colony, Quarter No. 6/1, Type-3, Bilaspur, P.S.- Torwa, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶12

	... Respondents
For Petitioner	: Mr. Roshan Dubey, Advocate
For Respondents/State	: Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A.
For Respondent No.2	: Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate.

¶13

Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶14

Judgment on Board

¶15

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶16

14/08/2025

¶17

The petitioners have filed this petition praying for following relief:-

¶18

“10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting-aside/quash the impugned order dated 08.03.2025 passed in Criminal Case No.

¶19

2

¶20

2927/2020 "State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Indresh Kumar Rai" by the learned National Lok Adalat/Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur (C.G.), by which, the learned National Lok Adalat has closed the proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 258 of Cr.P.C. and discharged the respondent no. 2 from the offence U/s 509(B) of Indian Penal Code.

¶21

10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to restore Criminal Case No. 2927/2020 "State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Indresh Kumar Rai" to the file of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur (C.G.) for further proceedings, in accordance with law.

¶22

10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given..”

¶23

(A) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is posted as Superintendent in the Office of Senior Divisional Personnel Senior Office Manager in South East Central Railway, Bilaspur and the respondent no. 2 is posted as Store Department in SECR, Bilaspur. The petitioner is a handicapped lady and she is deaf and dumb. The respondent used to send obscene messages by his mobile number 7047635665 in the mobile number 8269742625 of petitioner and thereby humiliate and insult the modesty of petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner made written complaint before the Police Station, Torwa, upon which, the offence U/s 509(B) of IPC has been registered against the respondent no. 2 in Crime No. 419/2019. During course of investigation, the mobile of the respondent no. 2 was seized and the same was sent to the Cyber Cell, Bilaspur for examination of

¶24

3

¶25

mobile of respondent no. 2 and Frontech DVD-R was collected and upon completion of investigation, the Station House Officer, Police Station, Torwa submitted the charges sheet bearing No. 61/2020 before the learned JMFC, Bilaspur. On the basis of material available on record, vide order dated 23.09.2023 the learned trial Court has framed the charges under Section 509-B of Indian Penal Code against the respondent no. 2 and directed the prosecution to examine the prosecution witnesses. After framing of charges, on 15.10.2024 the petitioner filed an application under Section 302 of Cr.P.C. for permission to assist the prosecution before the trial Court and vide order dated 19.02.2025 the learned trial Court has allowed the application U/s 302 of Cr.P.C., thereby petitioner assisted the prosecution and fixed the case for prosecution evidence on 04.03.2025.

¶26

(B) Learned counsel would further submit that earlier the case was fixed before the Presiding Judge Ms. Manisha Thakur, but on 20.01.2025 the case was committed to the Presiding Judge Ms. Jasvinder Kaur Ajmani Malik and vide order dated 04.03.2025 the said Presiding Judge has fixed the case before National Lok Adalat to be held on 08.03.2025. On 08.03.2025 the matter was fixed before the National Lok Adalat and on that day, the learned National Lok Adalat has closed the proceedings in exercise of powers vested by provisions of Section 258 of Cr.P.C. and discharged the respondent no. 2 from the offence U/s 509-B of IPC by holding that in spite of sufficient opportunity given to the

¶27

4

¶28

prosecution, the prosecution has failed to present the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel would submit that the matter was fixed before the learned National Lok Adalat, therefore, there was no occasion to present the prosecution witness on 08.03.2025 before the learned National Lok Adalat, as the National Lok Adalat has the power to pass decree/award on the basis of compromise between the petitioner and respondent, but as no compromise or any settlement taken place between the petitioner and respondent, therefore, instead of discharging the respondent no. 2, the learned National Lok Adalat ought to have reverted the case in the Regular Court for further hearing. Learned counsel further submit that the learned National Lok Adalat has decided the case in absence of the petitioner. Learned National Lok Adalat decided the case on merits by a findings of discharge of respondent no. 2, whereas the learned National Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to decide the case on merits and the learned National Lok Adalat can only pass award on the basis of settlement of the parties.

¶29

Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶30

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, considering that the order impugned has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, learned National Lok Adalat has decided the case on merits by reaching the findings of discharge of respondent No.2, whereas the learned

¶31

5

¶32

National Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to decide the case on merits and can only pass award on the basis of settlement of the parties.

¶33

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, impugned order dated 08/03/2025 passed by the learned National Lok Adalat/JMFC, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No.2927/2020 is quashed. The matter is restored to its original number i.e. Criminal Case No.2927/2020. The concerned Presiding Officer is directed to consider and decide the case in accordance with law and on its merits.

¶34

Accordingly, the WPCR is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶35

It is made clear that the Presiding Officer may decide the case without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this order. -

¶36

SD/SD/-

¶37

(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶38

Gowri/

¶39

Amardeep

Xyz v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Xyz v. State of Chhattisgarh

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

Dharamjeet @ Visvidhyalay Gupta Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Rahul Jaiswal @ Ankush Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramesh Sonant Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shashi Kumar Gandharva Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shiv Kumar Prajapati Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Narayan Prasad Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh