Dhaniram Sahu Vs Maheshwari Sahu

1. The petitioner has filed the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short, “BNSS”) against the order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the learned Court of Additional Judge, Sarangarh of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, CG, in Criminal Revision No. 02 of 2024, whereby the Criminal Revision filed by respondent-1/complainant is

¶17

Crmp 2636 of 2025

¶18

2

¶19

allowed, and learned trial Court is directed to further enquire into the matter, and to proceed in accordance with law.

¶20

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that present petitioner is proposed accused in the application filed by respondent-1 before the learned trial Court under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. It was alleged in the application that complainant is resident of Gram Panchayat Khairjhiti, and respondents-1 and 2 were elected Sachiv and Sarpanch respectively, in the year 2017-18. During their tenure, accused persons have misappropriated government fund under 13^th and 14^th government schemes. It is also alleged amount of Rs.3,41,000/- was misappropriated by withdrawing the same through cheques by the proposed accused persons. Complainant has also made a complaint to the Police StationBilaigarh on 23.03.2022 but no action has been taken by the Police, and then, application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC is filed by the complainant before the learned trial Court.

¶21

3. Learned trial Court, after receiving application from the complainant, vide its memo dated 02.06.2022, called the Police report from the concerned Police Station. Police Station Bilaigarh, after conducting enquiry, submitted its report before the learned trial Court on 18.04.2023, and according to the report, there is no misappropriation of any government fund, and the amount withdrawn from the bank by the proposed accused persons has duly been disbursed to its beneficiaries. Along with the police report, copies of the statements of the witnesses,

¶22

Crmp 2636 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

and enquiry report of the Janpad Panchayat had also been annexed. Considering the material available along with the application filed by the complainant, and the Police report submitted by Police Station Bilaigarh, learned trial Court rejected the application vide order dated 30.09.2023, stating therein that in the Police enquiry report, no prima facie offence is found alleged to be committed by the proposed accused persons, and therefore, for want of sufficient material for registration of the FIR, application filed by the complainant was rejected.

¶25

4. Complainant/respondent-1 has filed a revision against the order dated 30.09.2023 before the learned Revisional Court and the learned Court, after hearing the parties, vide its order dated 16.07.2025, allowed the revision, set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court, and remitted the matter back for further enquiry, and to proceed in accordance with law, which is under challenge in this petition.

¶26

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on the basis of enquiry report, learned trial Court has considered the evidence, and rejected the application filed by the complainant. Once the enquiry has been conducted by the Police, there is no need to direct them for further enquiry, as the detailed enquiry including the statements of the witnesses recorded have already been conducted by the Police, though it was a preliminary enquiry but nothing has been found by the Police against the proposed accused persons that they have committed any offence, and considering the availability of the material, learned trial Court has rightly

¶27

Crmp 2636 of 2025

¶28

4

¶29

rejected the application but without assigning any reason for not agreeing the finding recorded by the learned trial Court, learned revisional court remitted the matter back for fresh enquiry. He would further submit that learned revisional court ought to have considered the illegality, or infirmity in the order impugned passed by the learned trial Court but learned revisional court mechanically passed the order, remitting the matter back for fresh enquiry, which cannot be done, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable, and it is liable to be set aside.

¶30

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would support the impugned order, and would submit that learned trial Court, only on the basis of Police enquiry report, rejected the application. Learned revisional Court has considered that other evidences available on record i.e. the bank statements, have not been considered by the learned trial court, and therefore, for further enquiry, matter was remitted back, which does not suffer from any infirmity, or illegality.

¶31

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the material annexed with the petition.

¶32

8. It transpires from the order-sheets filed by the petitioner along with the present petition that on 02.06.2022, when the application under Section 156(3) CrPC was filed by the petitioner before the learned trial Court, police report was called. Police Station Bilaigarh, in compliance of the order dated 02.06.2022, submitted its report on 18.04.2023 along with statement of the witnesses, and the enquiry report of the Janpad

¶33

Crmp 2636 of 2025

¶34

5

¶35

Panchayat, Bilaigarh. From the Police report, it transpires that no offence prima facie appears to be committed by the proposed accused persons, and the alleged amount withdrawn by the proposed accused persons from the respective accounts has duly been disbursed to its beneficiaries. This Court also perused the statements of the witnesses annexed with the petition, which are the part of enquiry report dated 18.04.2023, submitted by Police Station. Though the petitioner has not filed copy of the enquiry report conducted by the Janpad Panchayat, but during the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner placed a copy of enquiry report on record. On perusal of said enquiry report of Janpad Panchayat, it also transpires that there was no offence alleged to be committed /found in the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bilaigarh.

¶36

9. Learned trial Court vide its order dated 30.09.2023 considered the enquiry report, and found that there is no sufficient evidence against the proposed accused persons to direct the Police to register FIR into the matter, and rejected the application filed by the petitioner. The learned revisional Court in para-7 of its order has observed that there was evidence of transfer of the amount in the bank account of the proposed accused persons, and they withdrew the same, which was not in accordance with law. Thererfore, the matter was remitted back for further enquiry, whereas, from the enquiry conducted by the Janpad Panchayat, Bilaigarh, as well as the enquiry conducted by the Police, and the statements of the witnesses, it transpires that there was no offence,

¶37

Crmp 2636 of 2025

¶38

6

¶39

prima facie committed by the proposed accused persons, as the amount withdrawn from the bank was properly disbursed to the beneficiaries.

¶40

10. Registration of FIR, and investigation by the Police does affect the personal life, and liberty of a person, against whom the complaint was made, and it does not ordinarily be framed.

¶41

11. In the matter of “ Krishna Lal Chawla and Others v. State of Uttar

¶42

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:-

¶43

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:

¶44

“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 two witnesses 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 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

¶45

Crmp 2636 of 2025

¶46

7

¶47

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.

¶48

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:

¶49

“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.”

¶50

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

¶51

Crmp 2636 of 2025

¶52

8

¶53

of frivolous proceedings in Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India, (2014) 8 SCC 470:

¶54

“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 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.”

¶55

12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, material available in the record, as well as in the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the opinion that learned revisional Court has committed illegality in exercising its jurisdiction by allowing the CRR filed by respondent-1, and by remitting the matter back to learned trial Court for further enquiry.

¶56

13. Accordingly, petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the learned revisional court is set aside, and order dated 30.09.2023 passed by the learned trial Court is upheld.

¶57

Crmp 2636 of 2025

¶58

9

¶59

14. Needless to say that the respondents take recourse to law, if they

¶60

so desire.

¶61

Sd/-

¶62

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE