fte/ ,-t^.^;-. :. f-'":' :• .- ; -fci; •-^••" •i7- IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR.M.P. N0. .2-^' '2—OF2011 fS.B.) PETITIONERS : ACCUSED PERSONS y.ft •^•!T§»•- .sft^ ^•vs^- ;A(^ 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Onkar Prasad (Pushpakar) Sonkar, aged about 33 years S/o Sharda Prasad Sonkar, R/o Mathpuraina, Near Nalghar Bajrang Chowk Raipur (C.G.). Present address - Oia Steel Traders, Bhanthagaon, Near Ring Road Chowk, Raipur, through - Khad Beej Utpadak avam Viti-ak Sanstha Maryadit Society, Bhanthagaon, Near Ring Road Chowk, Raipur (C.G.). Purnima @ Poonain (Pushpakar) Sonkar, W/o Onkar Prasad Pushpakar, R/o Mathpuraina, Near Nalghar Bajrang Chowk Raipur (C.G.). Present address - Om Steel Traders, Bhanthagaon, Near Ring Road Chowk, Raipur, through - Khad Beej Utpadak avam Vitrak Sanstha Maryadit Society, Bhanthagaon, Near Ring Road Chowk, Raipur (C.G.). Sharda Prasad Pushpakar, ^')^Q£.d(ceE<-tc<e-' R/o Mathpiiraina, Near Nalghar Bajrang Chowk, Raipur (C.G.). - - ,^ 2- Ramkumari Sonkar W/o Sharda Prasad S^'ts Pushpakar, R/o New Mathpuraina Near Nalghar Bajrang Chowk, Raipur (C.G.). Mohit Pushpakar S/o Sharda Prasad 'S'^f Pushpakar, R/o Mathpuraina, Near Nalghar Bajrang Chowk, Raipur (C.G.j. l^ Dulari Bai Sonkar W/o Late Laxm.scn.l^Mw/e.Css^-. Sonkar; Om Sonkar S/o Late Laxm.an Sonkar;^ii ^ 1 Vijay Sonkar S/o Late Laxman Sonkar; ^l»y 9. Shyam Sonkar S/o Late Laxman ^ i,^- Sonkar; 10. Ajay Sonkar S/o Late Laxman Sonkar; i</^ cs^ t^ 11. Shiv Sonkar S/o Late Laxman Sonkar; •^•i^ t_s 12. Vishnu Sonkar S/o Late Laxman 3 8 >^a» Sonkar; lAS1 •)._ ••-->' Petitioner No.6 to 12 are R/o Behind Kisan Rice MiU, Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.). 1- 13. Indra Bai Sonkar W/o Ishwar Sonkar, L,^^j R/o Sonkarpara, I^urani Basti, Raipur (C.G.). 14. Lekharaj Sonkar, ^. !<-?»»>)^y ^ ^ Sarpanch, Bhanthagaon S/o.not lcnown, j^ R/o Bhanthagaon, Raipur (C.G.). 15. Narendra Pushpakar S/o Parasram Pushpakar, R/o Near Gole Chowk, ^-7^^' Rohinipuram, District Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS RESPQNDENT COMPLAINANT 1. Nisha Pushpakar, aged about 31 years; W/o Onkar Prasad Pushpakar, R/o Lohar Chowk, Sonkarpara, Kankalipara Ward, Police Station Azad Chowk, Raipur (C.G.). 2. The State of Chhattisgarh, fhrough the District Magistrate, Raipur (C.G.j. ETITION UNDER SECTION OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 '/• B8i «Ba; ^-f HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Sinale BenchLHon'bl^Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. Petitioners Accused Persons Respondents Cr.M.P.No.272/2011 Onkar Prasad (Pushpakar) Sonkar and 14 others Versus Nisha Pushpakar and another Petition under^ection 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Present:- Shri M. k. Bhaduri,counsel for the petitioners. Shri Y. C. Sharma, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.2. ORALORDER (Passedon 06-09-2011) Heard. 2. The order passed by the Revisional Court on 22-02-2011 has been assailed on twin grounds. The first submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that against the petitioners No.2 to 15, the Magistrate did not register any offence leading to dismissal of complaint, in so far as they are concerned, but on a revision filed by the complainant against the said order of non-registration of case against the petitioners No.2 to 15, the Revisional Court without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing reversed the order and remanded the case to the Magistrate for consideration afresh, which is in utter violation of Section 398 of the Cr.P.C. Other submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that even if the revisional Court found that the Magistrate has not recorded any reasons for non registering offence, at the most, the matter could be remanded to the Magistrate for proper and fresh consideration of the material on record, but the Revisional Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by making sweeping observation in its order that a prima facie case for registration of offence is made out. Learned counsel has also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in .2- the case of Smt. Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and others, AIR 1976 S. C.1947. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the order passed by the Magistrate refusing to register offence against the petitioners No.2 to 15 is not based on any reasons whatsoever and the order is non- speaking. He submits that even though, no detailed reason is required to be recorded, brief reasons are required to be recorded before coming to the conclusion that no case for registration of offence is made out. That having not been done, the learned Magistrate has failed to exercise its jurisdiction, and therefore, the learned Revisional Court has rightly interfered with the order and remanded the case. 4. The first submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that in the absence of notice to the petitioners No.2 to 15, the order passed in the revision, must fail, has to be rejected in view of the order passed by this Court in the case of Gagan Rathi Vs. Ramdas Agrawal & Others, 2011(3)C.G.L.J.SN 22 (CG), the provisions contained in Section 398 of the Cr.P.C. have been considered and it has been held that no opportunity is required to be afforded as it is not a case of discharge. The factual background, in which, the order has been passed in that case, are similar. Therefore, the first ground has no merit. As far as the next submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the Revisional Court has exceeded itsjurisdiction in substituting 'rts view in place ofthat ofthe Magistrate, appears to be based on the observations, which have been made by the Revisional Court in para 16 of its order. It has been noted that the learned Magistrate, while refusing to register offence against the petitioners No.2 to 15, did not record any reasons to justify the conclusion arrived at. True it is that while registering offence or refusing to register any offence on a complaint, detailed reasons are not required to be recorded. However, at the same time, reasons in brief, are required to be stated in the order to show application of mind to the contents of the complaint and the preliminary statements before concluding one way or the other. A perusal of the order passed by the Magistrate shows that even this minimal exercise was not undertaken. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Revisional Court does not appear to be illegal. The order of the learned Revisional Court clearly shows that the matter has been remanded to the Magistrate to re-consider the material available on record of the complaint and pass appropriate orders. The observations, which have been made in para 16 of the Revisional Court order, cannot be treated to be a specific finding or a direction to necessarily register offence against the petitioners No.2 to 15. The Revisional Court has only given its observation without specifically examining contents of the complaint or preliminary statements of the complainant's witnesses. The present is not a case where the Revisional Court has substituted its own finding in the place of that recorded by the Magistrate. Interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction has been occasioned on the finding that the Magistrate did not properly consider the material available on record before refusing to register offence against petitioners No.2 to 15, therefore, ground on which, the interference is made by the revisional Court is with regard to illegality or perversity of the finding. The judgment of the Supreme Court, is therefore, distinguishable and not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, the Magistrate is required to consider the complaint and the preliminary statements and then take appropriate decision whether it is a case of registration of offence or not and take cognizance against the petitioners No.2 to 15. 4. With the observation as aforesaid and for the reasons recorded by this Court, this petition is finally disposed off. Man.ndraMohanShr.vastava Judge