##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:6442

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRMP No. 380 of 2026

1 - Rekha Agrawal W/o Late Lokesh Agrawal Aged About 58

Years Main Road Ushapada, Tikri, District- Raigada (Odisha)

Current Address Main Road, Pathalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.)

... Petitioner

versus

1 - Rina Mallik W/o Shyamal Malik Aged About 55 Years

Agrasen Bhawan, Durpa Road Korba, District Korba (C.G.)

... Respondent

For Petitioner : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate.

For Respondent : None.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

Order on Board

05/02/2026

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of

BNSS, 2023, against the order dated 12.11.2025, passed

by the learned Additional Sessions Judge FTC (POSCO),

Korba, District – Korba (C.G.) in Criminal Revision Case No.

33/2025 arising out of order dated 08.07.2025 passed by

learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba in Criminal

Case No. 246/2024, whereby under Section 274 of BNSS

Digitally

signed by

HEERAHEERA

LAL LAL SAHU

Date:

SAHU 2026.02.06

10:39:47

+0530

2

has been upheld.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent has filed

a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the

petitioner, before the JMFC, Korba, alleging that the

petitioner has stopped the cheque issued in favour of the

respondent (complainant), which has been issued on the

pretext of the Rent for the period of August 2022 to August

2023 (Annexure P-2). After hearing the parties, the learned

JMFC has framed the charges under Section 274 of BNSS,

and the plea of the accusation has been prepared vide

order dated 08.07.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the

revision before the learned additional Sessions Judge,

against the order dated 08.07.2025 and vide impugned

order dated 12.11.2025, the learned revisional Court has

rejected the revision filed by the petitioner and upheld the

order of the learned JMFC.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned

JMFC, vide order dated 08.07.2025, has framed the

charges in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section

274 of the BNSS, 2023, as while framing the charges, the

learned trial Court has failed to record the defence of the

accused, i.e., the petitioner, which is the mandatory

requirement of Section 274 of the Act. He further submits

that the impugned charges have been recorded in pre

3

mechanized manner, in a typographical manner. Therefore,

there is a violation of the mandatory provision of Section

274 of the BNSS. As such, the impugned orders are liable

to be set aside.

4. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner

and perused the documents annexed with the petition

including the impugned order.

5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that the plea recorded in pre mechanized

manner, in a typographical manner, which is a violation of

provision of Section 274 of BNSS, 2023.

6. Section 274 of BNSS, 2023 states as under:

274. Substance of accusation to be stated.-

When in a summons-case the accused appears

or is brought before the Magistrate, the

particulars of the offence of which he is accused

shall be stated to him, and he shall be asked

whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to

make, but it shall not be necessary to frame a

formal charge:

7. Looking to the provisions of Section 274 of BNSS, it is clear

that it provides the provision of pleading guilty or having

any defence to make on the part of the accused, and not

the procedure for writing the statement of the accused.

Also, looking to the trial Court order dated 08.07.2025, in

which it has been clearly mentioned that when the accused

4

denied the charges and requested a trial, the accused’s plea

was recorded in his own words. As such, the revisional

Court’s order does not reveal any illegality or irregularity in

it, nor is the said order improper. The said impugned order

of the revision Court is legal; there is no illegality, therefore,

this Court does not find it appropriate to interfere with the

order impugned.

8. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed at