2025:CGHC:14357 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 709 of 2023 Teekaram Mahobe S/o Late Govind Ram Mahobe Aged About 59 Years R/o Near Maharana Pratap Bhawan Shankar Nagar Durg, Police Station Mohan Ngar, Tahsil And, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus Vedprakash @ Gudda S/o Late Rajendra Prasad Gupta Aged About 50 Years R/o Polsaipara, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.), At Present R/o Beside Kalkatta Sweets, Borsi Colony, Police Chowki Padmanabhpur, Police Station Durg, Tahsil And, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Yogesh Netam, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate.

Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

25.03.2025

1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated ABHISHEK SHRIVAS

13.02.2023 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.03.28

18:04:54 +0530 (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) in Complaint Case Filing No. 10492/2021, whereby the complaint case filed by the appellant/complainant under Sections 294, 323, 506B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(1)(x, द, ध) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 36(C)(2) of the Excise Act has been dismissed at motion stage without taking cognizance against the respondent/accused.

2. Brief facts of the case is that the appellant/complainant complaint case before the learned trial Court under Sections 294, 323, and 506B of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 36(C)(2) of the Excise Act, 1915. The complainant, working as a clerk of an Advocate in the District Court Durg, alleged that on 26.06.2021, after finishing Court work, he went to the Gulshan Bear Bar at 9:30 PM with his friends Sanjay Sharma and Narayan Sahu. At the Bar, the accused, who was also drinking wine, refused to join the complainant's table despite knowing him. Later, when the complainant was leaving the Bar, the accused pushed him to the ground, using filthy language and threatening to kill him due to his lower caste. The complainant suffered injuries to both wrists, neck, and face. The complainant filed a written complaint at the AJAK Police Station Durg on the same night, despite his injured hand, and again at the Police Station Mohan Nagar on the next day. The police completed a medical examination and X-ray but took no further action. Consequently, the complainant was forced to file a complaint case before the learned trial Court. The trial Court registered the case on 01.10.2021, and recorded statements of the complainant, witnesses Sanjay Sharma, Narayan Prasad Sahu, Kunal Sharma, and Suresh Singh Banafar. After considering the evidence and police inquiry report, the trial court dismissed the complaint on 13.02.2023, citing lack of material evidence against the accused. Hence, this appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court failed to consider the assertions made by the appellant/complainant, specifically testimonies of eyewitnesses Sanjay Sharma and Narayan Prasad Sahu, who were present at the scene and attempted to pacify the situation. Furthermore, the caste certificate submitted by the complainant to prove his caste was ignored by the learned trial Court. He further submits that the trial Court based its decision solely on the police inquiry report and preliminary statements, which attributed the incident to business rivalry and a drunken altercation between two individuals working as clerks of Advocates. The complainant's preliminary statement, written complaint filed with the AJAK Police Station Durg, and statements of witnesses Sanjay Sharma, Narayan Prasad Sahu, Kunal Sharma, and Suresh Singh Banafar have been filed as Annexure A-3. These documents clearly mention the use of filthy language by the respondent/accused, physical assault, and threats to kill the complainant based on his caste. Despite eyewitness test