Chattisgarh High Court
Yogesh Kumar Jagatramka (In Person) vs Suresh Sharma on 30 March, 2026
Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Page 1 of 4
2026:CGHC:14734
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 227 of 2026
Yogesh Kumar Jagatramka S/o Suresh Kumar Jagatramka Aged About 30
Years R/o Station Road, Near S.P. Office, Raigarh, Tahsil And District-
Raigarh C.G.
... Petitioner (s)
versus
1 - Suresh Sharma S/o Shri Krishna Sharma Aged About 65 Years R/o Lal
Tanki Road, Raigarh, District Raigarh C.G.
2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Raigarh, District
Raigarh C.G.
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Suresh Kumar Jagatramka, Advocate through video conferencing.
For State : Mr. Shailesh Puriya, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 30/03/2026
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "the BNSS, 2023") alleging legality and propriety of the order dated 06.12.2025 passed by the learned Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, District- Raigarh in Criminal Revision No. 67/2025 by which the revision filed by respondent No. 1 has been allowed by directing the trial Court to follow the provision enumerated in Section 246 of the Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 269 of the BNSS, 2023.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has followed due process of law as Digitally signed by ARUN ARUN KUMAR KUMAR DEWANGAN DEWANGAN Date:
2026.03.30 16:06:37 +0530 Page 2 of 4 evident from order-sheet annexed by him, as such the learned Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh vide impugned order dated 06.12.2025 has transgressed the jurisdiction in well defined procedure followed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class and would pray for quashing of the impugned order dated 06.12.2025.
3. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class is legal and justify as Section 246 of Cr.P.C./269 of the BNSS, 2023 provides for recording of evidence before framing of charges and to substantiate his submission, he would refer to Section 246 of Cr.P.C./269 of the BNSS, 2023 and would pray for dismissal of the instant petition.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost circumspection.
5. To appreciate the submission, it is expedient for this Court to extract Section 246 of the Cr.P.C. as well as Section 269 of the BNSS, 2023 which are as under:-
"Section 246- Procedure where accused is not discharged.-
(1) If, when such evidence has been taken, or at any previous stage of the case, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. (2) The charge shall then be read and explained to the accused, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make.
(3) If the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate shall record the plea, and may, in his discretion, convict him thereon. (4) If the accused refuses to plead, or does not plead or claims to be tried or if the accused is not convicted under sub-section (3), Page 3 of 4 he shall be required to state, at the commencement of the next hearing of the case, or, if the Magistrate for reasons to be recorded in writing so thinks fit, forthwith, whether he wishes to cross-examine any, and, if so, which, of the witnesses for the prosecution whose evidence has been taken.
(5) If he says he does so wish, the witnesses named by him shall be recalled and, after cross-examination and re-examination (if any), they shall be discharged.
(6) The evidence of any remaining witnesses for the prosecution shall next be taken, and after cross-examination and re-
examination (if any), they shall also be discharged. Section 269. Procedure where accused is not discharged.--
(1) If, when such evidence has been taken, or at any previous stage of the case, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. (2) The charge shall then be read and explained to the accused, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make.
(3) If the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate shall record the plea, and may, in his discretion, convict him thereon. (4) If the accused refuses to plead, or does not plead or claims to be tried or if the accused is not convicted under sub-section (3), he shall be required to state, at the commencement of the next hearing of the case, or, if the Magistrate for reasons to be recorded in writing so thinks fit, forthwith, whether he wishes to cross-examine any, and, if so, which, of the witnesses for the prosecution whose evidence has been taken.
(5) If he says he does so wish, the witnesses named by him shall be recalled and, after cross-examination and re-examination (if any), they shall be discharged.
(6) The evidence of any remaining witnesses for the prosecution shall next be taken, and after cross- examination and re- examination (if any), they shall also be discharged. (7) Where, despite giving opportunity to the prosecution and after taking all reasonable measures under this Sanhita, if the attendance of the prosecution witnesses under sub-sections (5) and (6) cannot be secured for cross-examination, it shall be deemed that such witness has not been examined for not being available, and the Magistrate may close the prosecution evidence for reasons to be recorded in writing and proceed with Page 4 of 4 the case on the basis of the materials on record."
6. From perusal of Chapter XIX of the Cr.P.C. & Chapter XX of the BNSS, 2023, it is quite vivid that before framing of charge in trial of warrant- cases by Magistrates, the court has to record evidence which has admittedly not been done in the present case, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the the learned Fifth Additional Sessions Judge has not committed any illegality or irregularity while allowing the revision preferred by respondent No. 1 vide impugned order dated 06.12.2025, therefore, the same does not warrant any interference by this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that even after lapse of more than five years, the matter is at the stage of framing of charges, therefore, the learned trial Court may kindly be directed to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law that will survive the purpose of filing this petition also.
8. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law.
9. With the aforesaid direction, the instant petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Arun