Dismissed

Parasuram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC3 Mar 2022WPCR/239/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of a rape charge sheet. Holding that the prosecutrix was not yet examined and the trial had not commenced, the Court ruled that quashing powers should be exercised sparingly and rejected doubts raised by the defense regarding FSL reports and tower locations.

What did the court decide?

Petition to quash the charge sheet under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed.

Parasuram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

WPCR No. 239 of 2022

¶4

Parasuram Sahu S/o Late Chhattar Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o Achanakpur, P.S. And Tahsil, Utai, District - Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶5

Meghnath Thakur S/o Hemlal Thakur Aged About 27 Years R/o Amleshwar P.S. - Amleshwar, Tahsil-Patan, District - Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶6

Sonu @ Khomendra Vishwakarma S/o Sohanlal Vishwakarma Aged About 24 Years R/o Achanakpur, P.S. And Tahsil Utai, District - Durg Chhattisgarh,

¶7

Dodeshwar Kumar Sahu @ Dokesh Sahu S/o Late Benuram Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Achanakpur, P.S. And Tahsil Utai, District - Durg Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh Through The Additional Chief Secretary Department of Home Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Pin No. 492001

¶10

The Director General of Police Police Head Quarter, Naya Raipur, District-Raipur Chhattisgarh. Pin No.-492001

¶11

The Senior Supernitendent of Police District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶12

Station House Officer P.S.-Pulgaon, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶13

In-Charge, Police Post -Anjora, P.S.-Pulgaon, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶14

Saroj Chaure Sub Inspector, Ps- City Kotwali, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶15

Smt. Pemin Bai Sahu (Complainant) W/o Kamal Kumar Nishad Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Nipani. P.S. - Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh.

¶16

Nandu @ Nand Kumar Nishad S/o Late Paras Nishad, Aged About 44 Years R/o Village- Jamgaon (B) P.S. Balod District - Balod Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents

¶17

For the Petitioners : Mr. Suresh Prasad Sharma, Mr. Ajad Siddiqui and Mr. Dinesh Tiwari, Advocates.

¶18

For the State : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Dy. A.G.

¶19

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

¶21

Order on Board

¶22

03.03.2022

¶23

The present petition is filed to quash the charge sheet relating to Crime No.308/21 registered at Police Station Pulgaon, Police Chowki Anjora District Durg (C.G) for the offence punishable under sections 376(2)(I), 376(d), 377 & 506(b) of IPC.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that reading of the FIR along-with documents annexed to the charge sheet would show that it is completely improbable to believe the allegations levelled against them. He would submit that the allegations of rape by 4 persons have been made and during the incident it is alleged that the bangles were broken. He referred to FSL report and would submit that the bangles found on the spot and the broken bangles of the prosecutrix are not matched. He submits that the FSL report would show that the mud which was stained on the clothes of the prosecutrix and the mud which was found on the spot are quite different. He further submits that the tower locations of all the accused are different and one of the accused was discharging his duty at the relevant time. It is further contended that it is absurd to believe the accused who is father-in-law and brother all they have committed rape. He placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 153 - Shafiya Khan @ Shakuntala Prajapati Versus State of U.P., wherein at para 15 the

¶25

¶26

principles laid down in State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 have been reiterated and submits that these principles have been consistently been followed in various other decisions of the Supreme Court and applying the test in the present case what being alleged in the complaint on the basis of FIR even if prima facie taken into consideration, no offence is made out of the kind levelled against the Petitioners.

¶27

Learned counsel has further placed reliance on a decision rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 1395/2018 [Anand Kumar Mohatta vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)] decided on 15th November, 2018 and submit that in exercise of powers u/s 482 of CrPC the charge sheet can be quashed any time.

¶28

Per contra, learned State Counsel would submit that the trial has not begun and the prosecutrix has named the accused persons in the statements recorded u/s 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C., which cannot be avoided at this stage with the aid of evidence other witnesses. He further submits that it is not the stage where the power of Section 482 CrPC can be exercised, therefore, the petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners heavily relied on FSL report and the tower locations, which do not support the allegations levelled against the accused. If the statements of prosecutrix recorded u/s 161 & 164 CrPC are examined, it appears that in both the statements all the four accused have been named. At this stage, what is the veracity of the statements of the prosecurtirx,

¶30

¶31

cannot be adjudged with the aid of FSL report and the tower location of the accused. In 161 CrPC statement, 4 persons have been categorically named and it is also alleged that apart from rape, the prosecutrix was subjected to unnatural sexual acts perpetrated by the accused.

¶32

The supreme Court in Santosh Prasad alias Santosh Kumar Versus State of Bihar (2020) 3 SCC 443 has sustained the conviction on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. Further in State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Pankaj Chaudhary (2019) 11 SCC 575 the Court held that the testimony of the prosecutrix should not be doubted by the Court merely on the basis of assumptions and conjectures. In the instant case, the prosecutrix has not been examined till date. The FIR which which was red-out along with the statements of prosecutrix would prima facie show that it is factually corroborated by the statements of prosecutrix. The trial has not begun and the evidence of the prosecutrix is yet to be recorded which is required to be tested in examination and cross examination. The Supreme Court in Shafiya Khan @ Shakuntala Prajapati (supra) relied by learned counsel for the petitioners itself has observed that the power of quashing of FIR should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and that too in rarest of the rare cases and it would not be fair for the Court in embarking upon an the enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR and that the inherent powers do not confer any

¶33

¶34

arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims and fancies.

¶35

Applying the aforesaid law laid down by the Supreme Court and looking to the pendency of the criminal case before the Sessions Court, at this stage, the FIR cannot be quashed by exercising the power under Section 482

¶36

CrPC. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE

¶39

Rao

Parasuram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parasuram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rashid Baksh Vs Rajendra Gupta and Ors.

Sanjay Jalan Vs Virendra Pandey

Brijesh Kumar Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chandra Prakash Sharma Vs Anil Sahu

Lawrens Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gopal Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh