Chattisgarh High Court
Anvesh Mishra vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:13160
KUNAL
NAFR
DEWANGAN
Digitally
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
signed by
KUNAL
DEWANGAN
CRMP No. 204 of 2023
1 - Anvesh Mishra S/o Late Sushil Kumar Mishra Aged About 36 Years
R/o Maharana Pratap Nagar, Shri Ram Park Colony, Ward No. 01, Thana
Sirgitti, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Poonam Mishra D/o Late Sushil Kumar Mishra Aged About 30 Years
R/o Maharana Pratap Nagar, Shri Ram Park Colony, Ward No. 01, Thana
Sirgitti, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Priya Mishra D/o Late Sushil Kumar Mishra Aged About 33 Years R/o
Maharana Pratap Nagar, Shri Ram Park Colony, Ward No. 01, Thana
Sirgitti, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Police Station Sirgitti, District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
2 - Umesh Pratap Singh S/o Rajendra Pratap Singh Residence Maharana
Pratap Nagar, Shri Ram Park Colony Presently Yadunandan Nagar,
Thana Sirgitti, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Suman Singh W/o Umesh Pratap Singh Residence Maharana Pratap
Nagar, Shri Ram Park Colony, Presently Yadunandan Nagar, Thana
Sirgitti, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Rahul Singh Presently Address Or Work Amadand Bhalumada, Tehsil
Kotma, District Anupur Through, Area General Manager, Jamuna Kotma
Area, South Eastern Coalfields Limited Pincode- 484444, District :
Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Priya Mishra, in person.
For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate.
For Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 : Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, Advocate.
2
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Judgment on Board
19.03.2026
1. Heard Ms. Priya Mishra, petitioner in person. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1/State and Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') has been preferred by the petitioners, being aggrieved by the order dated 22.12.2022 passed by the learned 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.), in Criminal Revision No. 127/2022 (Anvesh Mishra and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others), whereby the learned Revisional Court has rejected the challenge to the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No. 2412/2018, concerning an application under Section 302 of the Cr.P.C. The present petition has been filed invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court on the following facts and grounds.
3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the case that the accused persons are being prosecuted on the basis of a First Information Report registered at Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur (C.G.), bearing Crime No. 118/2018 and Criminal Case No. 2412/2018, lodged by Anvesh Mishra against Rahul Singh, Umesh Singh, and Suman Singh, who are respondents. The petitioners are citizens of India and are living peacefully with their family members. It is submitted that on 14.04.2018, the petitioners along with their family 3 members were sitting at their house when respondent No. 2, along with his family members, suddenly arrived and started questioning the petitioners.
Upon such interaction, respondent No. 2 began quarrelling with the petitioners and started beating and abusing petitioner No. 1 and his sisters. Thereafter, petitioner No. 1 reported the said incident at Police Station Sirgitti against respondent No. 2, his wife, and his brother-in-law, which led to registration of Crime No. 118/2018.
Subsequently, on 15.04.2018, respondent No. 3 lodged a counter FIR bearing Crime No. 119/2018 against the present petitioners and their sisters. Thus, a cross-case was registered between both parties. Initially, both FIRs were registered under Sections 294, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC'). Thereafter, Section 325 IPC was also added in Crime No. 119/2018. It is further submitted that the police filed the final report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. against the petitioners and their sisters without conducting a fair and proper investigation on the FIR lodged by the petitioners.
As per the FIR lodged by the respondents, allegations have been made that the petitioners, along with their sisters, assaulted respondent No. 2, his son and his brother-in-law using sandals and a copper wire, resulting in injuries on the right-hand finger, back and left elbow of respondent No. 2. It is further submitted that the injuries sustained by the wife of respondent No. 2 are simple in nature and minor injuries were also reported on the chest of his son and the left 4 hand of his brother-in-law. On the other hand, as per the FIR lodged by the petitioners, it is alleged that respondent No. 2 and his wife and his brother-in-law assaulted the petitioners and their sisters using a copper wire and a rod.
4. Upon perusal of the final report submitted under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. in Crime No. 118/2018, it reveals that a seizure memo was prepared showing recovery of a copper wire and a rod from respondent No. 2. The said seizure was made in the presence of two witnesses, namely, Sayed Shakil and Abdul Shakeel, residents of Yadunandan Nagar, Bilaspur. However, in the case registered against the petitioners, no such seizure was made and no weapon was recovered from them as alleged by the respondents.
5. During the course of investigation, the police recorded statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. of witnesses including Umesh Singh, Rahul Singh and Suman Singh. One witness, Sanjay Thawait, stated that on the date of the incident he was present at the police station with Sub-Inspector Baghel between 6:00 PM to 9:30 PM, when Umesh Singh informed over the phone that Anvesh Mishra and his sisters were assaulting him. He further stated that he requested the police to intervene and also witnessed the accused persons abusing Umesh Singh. Another witness, Babu Singh, stated that at about 9:00 PM, Umesh Singh informed him telephonically about the incident, whereafter he went to the spot and requested the accused persons to stop abusing Umesh Singh and his family members. That Sajid Khan, upon being informed by Babu Singh, also reached the place of occurrence. Umesh Singh, husband of 5 Suman Singh, is the complainant in Crime No. 119/2018 and is also a witness in Crime No. 118/2018, thus, he is a prosecution witness in both cases. That Sayed Shakil, son of Syed Ibrahim, is a seizure witness in Crime No. 118/2018 and is the brother of Sajid Khan. Abdul Shakeel is also a witness in Crime No. 118/2018 and stood surety for the accused persons.
6. The complainant/petitioners had filed an application under Section 302 of the Cr.P.C., which was allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, vide order dated 28.11.2019. No objection was raised by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, the accused persons objected to the said application. After hearing both parties, the learned JMFC allowed the said application under Section 302 of the Cr.P.C. Subsequently, another application under Section 302 of the Cr.P.C. came to be filed before the JMFC, and the same was rejected by the learned JMFC vide order dated 02.04.2022.
7. Ms. Priya Mishra, petitioner in person submits that the learned trial Court has committed a grave error of law inasmuch as it failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and at the same time, exercised jurisdiction not vested in it. It is further contended that the learned trial Court as well as revisional Court have completely ignored the true nature, scope and object of Section 302 of the Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that the impugned order has been passed under a grave misconception of both facts and law and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside in exercise of the revisional/inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
6
8. On the other hand, learned State counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 submits that the impugned orders passed by the trial Court as well as revisional Court are well-reasoned, just and in accordance with law and do not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court. It is contended that both the Courts have rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and have passed the orders within the bounds of their jurisdiction. It is further submitted that no case is made out for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., and therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
9. Learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 adopts the submissions advanced by the learned State counsel and further submits that the impugned orders passed by the Courts below are legal, proper, and do not call for any interference by this Court. It is contended that the petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
10. By way of rejoinder-affidavit, Ms. Mishra submits that the impugned orders passed by the learned trial Court as well as revisional Court are wholly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles of law. It is contended that once the application under Section 302 of the Cr.P.C. was duly allowed by the learned JMFC vide order dated 28.11.2019, the subsequent Presiding Officer had no jurisdiction to review or recall the said order and reject the application afresh, rendering the impugned order without jurisdiction. It is further submitted that both the Courts have failed to appreciate that the present matter arises out of cross FIRs bearing Crime No. 118/2018 and 119/2018, and the material available on record clearly 7 demonstrates inconsistencies in the prosecution case, including the fact that no seizure of any alleged weapon has been made from the petitioners, whereas seizure has been shown from the side of the respondents. It is also submitted that the investigation conducted against the petitioners is unfair and biased and the true scope and object of Section 302 of the Cr.P.C. has not been properly considered by the both Courts. It is further contended that the respondents have failed to file any proper reply controverting the averments made in the petition and as such, the submissions of the petitioners remain un-rebutted. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned orders deserve to be set aside in the interest of justice.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with this petition.
12. From perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court as well as the order of the learned Revisional Court, it is apparent that both the Courts have considered the matter in its proper perspective and have recorded concurrent findings. The learned revisional Court has specifically held that the order passed by the trial Court on the application under Section 302 of the Cr.P.C. is interlocutory in nature and therefore, not amenable to revisional jurisdiction. It has further been observed that the petitioners, instead of first seeking permission under Section 301(2) of the Cr.P.C. to assist the prosecution under the directions of the Public Prosecutor, had directly filed an application under Section 302 of the Cr.P.C. seeking permission to conduct the prosecution, which is not in accordance with law. The learned revisional Court has thus found 8 that the order passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any illegality, impropriety, or perversity. In view of the aforesaid findings and the settled legal position, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders.
13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the order passed by the learned trial Court being interlocutory, and the findings recorded by the learned revisional Court affirming the same, this Court is of the opinion that no case is made out for exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. However, the petitioners are at liberty to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law, including by filing a proper application under Section 301(2) of the Cr.P.C. before the trial Court, if so advised.
14. Consequently, the present petition, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.
15. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court as well as revisional Court concerned for necessary information and compliance.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal