Allowed

Sonamati Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC5 Sept 2023CRMP/370/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought quashing of an FIR regarding alleged suppression of educational details during employment. The High Court allowed the CRMP after finding a settlement agreement and mutual divorce application between the parties, resulting in the quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The FIR in Crime No. 0043/2022 and all consequential proceedings are quashed.

Sonamati Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Quashing and FIR | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRMP No. 370 of 2022

¶5

Sonamati Singh, D/o Baleshwar Singh (W/o Vinay Agrawal), aged about 37 years, R/o 12/A Mahamaya Park Colony, Mangla, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the Police Station Chhuikhadan, Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶9

Prakash Chandra Taram, S/o Late Dhaniram Taram, aged about 31 years, Chief Executive Officer, Office District Janpad Panchayat, Chhuikhandan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶10

Vinay Agrawal, S/o Subhash Chandra Agrawal, aged about 35 years, R/o Near Shanti Nagar Bhilai-III, District Durg (C.G.)

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶13

For Petitioner	: Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate
For State	: Mr. Avinash Singh, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No.3	: Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶15

Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Chandravanshi, Judge

¶16

O rder on Board

¶17

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶18

05.09.2023

¶19

Heard Mr. Punit Ruparel, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Avinash Singh, learned Panal Lawyer for the respondent/State and

¶20

¶21

Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

¶22

The present CRMP has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

¶23

“The petitioner therefore most humbly and respectfully prays that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the FIR and subsequent proceeding in Crime No. 0043/2022 registered in Police Station Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), in the interest of justice.”

¶24

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is earlier working as Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) at Primary School, Chharbhatha, Block Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), she is appointed on 05.07.2010 in that post. The petitioner is taken leave for the period of 01.09.2015 to 31.03.2016 from the concerned authority i.e. Block Education Officer, Chhuikhadan, her application for grant of leave is presented before the concerned authority in requisite form. During that period the mother of the petitioner was died, hence she is not able to join her service on the specified date, though this information was communicated to the authority, with this effect the show cause notice has been issued to her, though she has given her joining but she is not able to meet Executive Officer, Chhuikhadan i.e. respondent no. 2, hence she is not able to join her service, on the basis of show cause notice her

¶25

¶26

job was terminated without any departmental enquiry or without affording any proper opportunity of hearing to her, no any departmental enquiry is conducted, by violating the principle of natural justice her job was terminated by the order dated 02.05.2016 by the respondent no. 2, by the order dated 02.05.2016 the respondent no. 2 dismissed/removed the petitioner from job.

¶27

The petitioner made a representation to the respondent authority for reinstate her in her service and with this effect she is given application/representation to the respondent authorities on 06.05.2016, but there is no consideration on the part of the respondent authorities on the representation of the petitioner. After removing/ dismissing from the job, the petitioner is not anywhere connected with the respondent authorities, all of sudden the respondent no. 3/complainant/ husband of the petitioner made a complaint to the respondent no.2 stated that the petitioner was studying B.Ed. during the course of her service and this fact is not communicated by her to the authority, on the basis of this complaint, the respondent no. 2 sent a intimation dated 21.12.2021 that this fact that the petitioner studying B.Ed. during the course of her employment to the respondent authorities is suppress by her, hence the respondent no. 2 take action against her by lodging FIR in local police station.

¶28

The petitioner has replied the intimation dated 21.12.2021 on 29.12.2021 to the respondent no. 2 and taken her stand while explaining the everything in detail. Thereafter the respondent no. 2 sent a letter / intimation dated 05.01.2022 to the petitioner intimating

¶29

¶30

that he is enquired the matter of suppressing of B.Ed. education of her during the course of employment and directed to be remained present on 14.01.2022 in his office personally or through her representative, though the petitioner is terminated from the job in the year 2016 now she is directed to be face departmental enquiry in the year 2022. The petitioner has also replied the letter dated 05.01.2022 that she has intimated inconvenient to be appeared on 14.01.2022 before him because pandemic of Corona is going on and she has one minor son of 3 years with her, taking the minor alongwith her and travelling at Rajnandgaon District is not possible during the Pandemic, further she is contesting number of cases against her husband i.e. respondent no. 3 she is not able to arrange money immediately to come forward before him.

¶31

The petitioner has filed the writ petition (s) no. 248/2022 while challenging the intimation/letter dated 21.12.2021 and 05.01.2021 sent by the respondent no.2 before the Hon'ble Court, earlier the petitioner is challenged the similar allegation leveled by the respondent no. 3 on the basis of which the departmental enquiry is initiated, in WPS No. 7071/2021 the Hon'ble Court granted stay on the departmental enquiry and WPS No. 248/2022 is connected with the WPS No. 7071/2021. That, the respondent no. 2 being dissatisfied with the reply of the petitioner for taking time to be remained present before him, he lodged the impugned FIR in Crime No. 0043/2022 at Police Station Chhuikhadan on 09.02.2022 against the petitioner in the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of Indian Penal Code.

¶32

¶33

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto with utmost circumspection.

¶34

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the documents it transpired that an additional reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.3 which is on record. It appears that compromise has been arrived between the parties as per the agreement executed on 21.11.2022. In view of the same the parties do not want to further litigate the matter. A mutual divorce application has also been filed on the basis of mutual consent between the parties.

¶35

On the basis of the settlement arrived between the parties, the FIR and all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed.

¶36

Petitioner and respondent No.3 both are present before this Court and they have been identified by the respective counsel Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate and Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Advocate.

¶37

In view of the above, the present CRMP is allowed.

¶38

Sd/- Sd/-

¶39

(N.K. Chandravanshi) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶40

ved

Sonamati Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonamati Singh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Kailash Chand Ladwa

Reshma Aadil Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Dilip Kumar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Satauram Mandavi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Ranu Beck Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kamla Kurre Vs State of Chhattisgarh