CAV Order

1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant being aggrieved by the order dated 2-4-2017 of registration of criminal complaint (Case No. 13/2017) against the applicants under Section 294, 323, 506-B of the Indian Penal Code (in brevity 'IPC') and Section 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'Atrocities Act') and also against the order dated 5-9-2017 whereby charges for the aforesaid offences have been framed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that in the year 2013, complainant/ non-applicant No. 1 Santosh Kumar Vani had taken some loan from applicant No. 2 Narendra Yadav and for security purpose, he had given two cheques to applicant No. 2. Later on, respondent No. 1 asked applicant No. 2 to return both the cheques, but he said that if he will give Rs. 2 lacs to him, then only he will return both the cheques. On 9-1-2015, non-applicant No. 1 gave written complaint to Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur in this regard. On 26-7-2016 at about 10.00 am, when non-applicant No. 1 was going to Sanichari on motorcycle with one Govind Banjare, then at Gondpara, bank of river, applicants stopped them, they demanded to return Rs. 2 lacs and when non-applicant No. 1 said that he is ready to return Rs. 1 lac, the applicants got angry, abused them in filthy language, also abused non-applicant No. 1 by naming his caste, committed marpeet with him. When Govind Banjare tried to intervene, then applicants also abused him in filthy language and threatened him also. On the same day, non-applicant No. 1 sent written complaint to the Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur, and other higher officers, but no action was taken against them, hence non-applicant No. 1 filed complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of Special Judge (Atrocities), Bilaspur for registration of criminal case under Section 341, 294, 323, 506 of the IPC and Section

3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act against the applicants/accused.

3. Learned Court below after recording of statement of non- applicant No. 1/complainant and his witnesses under Section 200/202 of the Cr.P.C., vide order dated 2-4-2017 registered complaint case against the applicants/accused under Section 294, 323, 506-B of the IPC and Section 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S) of the Atrocities Act and after appearance of applicants/accused, vide order dated 5-9-2017 framed charges for the aforesaid offences. Hence, this revision.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that alleged criminal complaint case is totally false and baseless and has been filed only to get rid of the cheque bounce case filed by the applicant No. 1, against the non-applicant No. 1. He would further submit that as per the complaint and statement of complainant and his witnesses, date of incident is 26-7-2016, but instead of filing FIR in concerned police station, the complainant is said to have sent complaint to the Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur, and other higher officials and thereafter, on 25-1-2017, he filed present criminal complaint against the applicants, but before filing present criminal complaint, the applicant No. 1 Kumar Rohit Singh had filed complaint case No. 814/2016 against non- applicant No. 1/complainant of present case, therefore, to get rid of this cheque bounce case, the non-applicant No. 1/complainant filed present complaint case against the applicants and to show that with regard to the alleged present incident dated 26-7-2016, he had made report to the police, he had filed documents regarding sending of complaint to the Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur, that too, on the same date 26-7-2016. Learned counsel for the applicants would next submit that in reply to the application filed by the applicant No. 1 Kumar Rohit Singh under the Right to Information Act, the office of Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur has informed vide Annexure P-7 that as per complaint register maintained in the office,