In successive writ petitions, the High Court rejected the prayer to quash the charge sheet alleging offences under sections 302 and 376 IPC. The court held that settlement and withdrawal notifications could not be considered at this stage for serious crimes and dismissed the pleas citing Supreme Court precedents.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 515 of 2021
Virendra Singh Rajput S/o Shri Ghanshyam Singh Rajput Aged About 30 Years R/o Village And Post - Sildaha, Police Station And Tahsil - Pathariya, District - Mungeli (Chhattisgarh), District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondents
CRMP No. 613 of 2021
Devanand Kenwat S/o Shri Komal Prasad Kenwat Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Kasdol Police Station Balaodabazat District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) At Present R/o Pachpedi Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
-2-
---- Respondents
______________________________________________________ For Respective Petitioners : Shri S.P. Kale with Shri Lav Sharma, Shri Dheerendra Pandey, Advocates For State/Res.No.1 & 2 : Shri Udhav Sharma, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Shri Deepak Jain, Advocate ____________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Order
11/11/2021
-3-
on the report dated 9.11.2020, further statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. were recorded and it is then only, the allegations have been levelled against the petitioners with ulterior motive. There is no provision under Code of Criminal Procedure of recording statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of complainant more than once. The whole exercise has been done only to falsely implicate the employees of police department. Documents executed by the prosecutrix and her mother clearly shows that the prosecutrix has submitted complaint against the police persons because they have scolded her and it is only in the manner to take revenge thereof. The petitioners, as alleged, came on 5.8.2020 in a Govt. vehicle which is reserved for emergency service under the State Emergency Service No.112. This vehicle is centrally monitored from the State Head Quarter, Raipur. The petitioners have also filed the location of the vehicle at page No.118 & 119 from which it is apparent that the location of the vehicle was not shown to have visited the place of incident at village- Pandhi. The place of incident and location of vehicle as obtained by the petitioners from official website of the Government under RTI would show that vehicle under dial No.112 at any point of time has not visited the place of incident i.e. village Pandhi. Learned counsel for the petitioners also referred to duty chart (at page No.120) and submitted that on the date of alleged incident i.e. 5.8.2020, the petitioner was on duty 6:00 am to 2:00 pm. Considering the entirety of the facts of the case, particularly the allegation levelled in the written complaint dated 20th October 2020, FIR registered on 20th October 2020 and statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 21.10.2020 along with the documents executed by the prosecutrix and her mother, is sufficient to show that the petitioners have been falsely implicated. He also pointed out that realising her mistake, complainant/prosecutrix has submitted no objection in proceedings of hearing bail application of the petitioners
-4-
wherein also she has narrated that the petitioners were not involved in commission of any offence. He submits that in view of aforementioned material available in the record, petition be allowed and the charge sheet filed against the petitioner be quashed.
-5-
thereafter the prosecutrix has lodged report initially on 26.8.2020 making allegations against the petitioners also apart from other co-accused. The allegations are of serious nature. The police have not initially registered the crime against the petitioner but when subsequently a further complaint was made, statement of prosecutrix under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which there are specific allegations of commission of crime against the petitioners also. Grounds raised by the petitioner may be their defence but it cannot be considered while considering the prayer for quashment of charge sheet. He also submits that there is no bar of recording statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate twice but it only provides the authority to the Magistrate to record statement of the complainant/prosecutrix immediately after registration of FIR. In heinous offence like offence under Sections 302, 376 IPC, the FIR/charge sheet is not to be quashed on the basis of settlement as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303. Documents placed on record i.e. agreement deed and letter of prosecutrix immediately after first complaint is prima facie sufficient for proceeding with the case against petitioners also. Location of the vehicle as placed is also of different time. Petitions being devoid of substance is to be dismissed.
-6-
(in CRMP No. 613 of 2021) there is written report filed by the prosecutrix before Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur on 26.8.2020.Perusal of the report would show that the said report was received by the concerned office on 27.8.2020. In the said report, allegation against the Police Constables have been levelled of commission of offence by them by taking her in the mobile vehicle engaged for emergency call service under dial No.112. The written report, FIR as referred by learned counsel for the petitioners is subsequent to the aforementioned report. The petitioners have also placed on record the agreement deed of mother dated 2.9.2020 and her statement dated 2.9.2020, further the application to the SHO of Police Station -Sarkanda dated 2.9.2020. In view of ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra), this document cannot be considered at this stage. Submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and document relied upon by them may be their defence which can be taken by them at appropriate stage and appropriate forum and not in this petition seeking relief of quashment of charge sheet. This Court is refraining itself from elaborately discussing the material placed on record keeping in mind that it may be prejudicial to the interest of the parties because it is for the trial Court to apply its mind based on the evidence brought on record by the respective parties.
Sd/--/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge
Praveen
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the charge sheet filed in the criminal case should be quashed based on the late recording of the FIR and subsequent complaints?
Whether the settlement between the parties and withdrawal of complaint can be a ground for quashing of the charge sheet in serious offences?
Whether the discrepancy in the timeline of the FIR and the initial police report warrants dismissal of the criminal proceeding?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.Distinguished¶4
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr
State of Haryana v. BhajanlalApplied¶7
State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal
Amish Devgan v. Union of IndiaApplied¶7
Amish Devgan vs. Union of India
Virendra Singh Rajput
Devanand Kenwat
State Of Chhattisgarh
Smt. Birash Bai Guleri
Parth Prateem Sahu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
