Allowed

Vijay Yechuri v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC13 Sept 2023CRMP/171/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed petitions under Section 482 CrPC to quash FIRs registered for cheating and forgery offences. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that since the dispute was settled via statements recorded before the Registrar (Judicial), the FIR should be quashed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR dated 06.09.2018 bearing No.33341013180588 is hereby quashed.

Vijay Yechuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Quashing and FIR | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRMP No. 1964 of 2018

¶5

Narendra Kishore Agrawal S/o Radheshyam Agrawal Aged About 36 Years R/o Mahesh Colony, Gali No.2, Gudiyari Shrinagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶6

Deepak Sawariya S/o Late Madanlal Agrawal Aged About 40 Years R/ o D-29 Maruti Enclave, Behind Aims Hospital, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

Pankaj Gupta S/o Rambilas Gupta Aged About 38 Years R/o E-302, Jaiman Plaza, Near Aims Hospital, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

Rakesh Agrawal S/o Suraj Prasad Agrawal Aged About 40 Years R/o Maruti Life Style, Kota, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Smt. Sandhya Agrawal W/o Nandkishore Agrawal Aged About 39 Years R/o Mahesh Colony, Gali No.2, Gudiyari, Shrinagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Smt. Sangeeta Agrawal W/o Ramnarayan Agrawal Aged About 38 Years R/o Samata Colony, Near Radhakrishna Mandir, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioners

¶11

Versus

¶12

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

Ghanshyam Agrawal S/o Late Shri M.L. Agrawal Aged About 44 Years R/o G-2, Ashok Pal, Khamhardih, Shankar Nagar, Police Station Civil Lines, Tahsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents

¶14

CRMP No. 171 of 2019

¶15

Vijay Yechuri S/o Shri Y. Suryanarayana Aged About 56 Years Presently Posted As Assistant General Manager State Bank Of India, S. A. R. B. Sector-1, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶16

Lalit Pradhan S/o Late Shri Surendra Pradhan Aged About 56 Years Presently Working As City Case Officer, State Bank Of India, S. A. R. B. Madan Complex, Shankar Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioners

¶17

Versus

¶18

State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District :

¶19

-2-

¶20

Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶21

Ghanshyam Agrawal S/o Late M. L. Agrawal Aged About 44 Years R/o G-2, Khamardih, Shankar Nagar, P. S. Civil Lines, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh........(Complainant), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶22

---- Respondents

¶23

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶24

For Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe and Mr. P. R. Patankar, Advocates
For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Lalit Jangde, Dy. G. A.
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate

¶25

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶26

13.09.2023

¶27

1. This petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the FIR dated 06.09.2018 bearing Crime No.33341013180588 registered at Police Station- Civil Lines, Raipur District Raipur for the commission of offence under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 of the IPC.

¶28

1. In this case, the complainant, who engaged in a rolling mill business in Raipur, Chhattisgarh, financed the mill with a loan from the State Bank of India, mortgaging his 4-acre land and machinery. Due to economic recession, he couldn't meet loan payments, and the bank classified his account as a Non-Performing Asset. The bank issued an e-auction

¶29

-3-

¶30

notice for his property, setting a payment deadline of 03.09.2016. Allegedly, no payment was made. The complainant approached to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, claiming that the bank accepted a bid from Barbaric Transmission and Power, Raipur, but the deposit has not been paid on time. It is also alleged that the bank improperly approved Barbaric Transmission and Power's request for a Fixed Deposit. Thereafter, matter was reported to the police and FIR was registered against the accused persons for the offence as stated above.

¶31

1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and respondent No.2 would submit that the dispute between the parties has already been settled. They would further submit that pursuant to the order dated 04.09.2023 both the parties have appeared before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court and their statements were recorded, where respondent No.2/complainant has stated that he does not wish to pursue the criminal case against the petitioner furthermore, and he has no objection, if the petition is allowed for quashing of the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings.

¶32

1. Learned counsel for the respondents would not oppose the above contention.

¶33

1. I have heard the joint contentions put forth by learned

¶34

-4-

¶35

counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

¶36

1. From the documents, it appears that pursuant to the order dated 04.09.2023, the petitioners and respondent No.2 appeared before the Registrar (Judicial), where they categorically stated that they have settled the dispute and arrived at a settlement without any coercion, greed, or pressure.

¶37

1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the matter of 'Ramgopal And Another Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 834' and ‘Narinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in 2014(6) SCC 466’, that the matters which can be categorized as personal in nature or in the matter in which the nature of injuries do not exhibit mental depravity or commission of an offence of such a serious nature that quashing of which would override public interest, the Court can quash the FIR in view of the settlement arrived at amongst the parties.

¶38

1. In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case as well as the law rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Ramgopal (supra) and Narinder Singh (supra), and further considering the fact that both the parties have settled their dispute which is evident from the statements dated 04.09.2023 recorded before the Registrar

¶39

-5-

¶40

(Judicial) of this Court, I feel inclined to allow this petition. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned FIR dated 06.09.2018 bearing No.33341013180588 is

¶41

hereby quashed.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶44

Nadim

Vijay Yechuri v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Yechuri 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxmin Bai Vs Mitthuram Sahu

Radhelal Vs Santosh

Vijendra Singh Vs Union of India

Smt. Jaimvati Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lakhanlal and Ors. Vs Smt. Sarji Bai (Died) Through Lrs.

Abdul Haleem Khan Vs Jabbar Mohammed