Dismissed

Krishnakant Ramavatar Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC13 Dec 2023WPCR/17/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court rejected petition seeking quashing of FIR and impugned order in a dispute over immovable property. Court held allegations disclose cognizable offence requiring investigation and dismissed writ petition relying on Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.0592/2022 and order dated 19-01-2022 disposed of as not maintainable; interim order vacated.

Krishnakant Ramavatar Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Anticipatory Bail | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPCR No. 17 of 2023

¶5

Krishnakant Ramavatar Tiwari S/o Ramavtar Tiwari, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Flat No. 601, Maruti Homes, Hirapur Road, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶6

Hitesh Choubey S/o Shri Ishwar Prasad Choubey, Aged About 36 Years, Proprietor M/s Hope Enterprises R/o K-13, Sector 2, Agrasen Nagar, Raipura Chowk, Ring Road No.1 Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶7

Rupesh Choubey S/o Shri Ishwar Prasad Choubey, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Flat No.143, Fifth Floor, Vrindavan Didwaniyia Regency, Ring Road No.1 DD Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶8

---- Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Dindayal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

Superintendent of Police District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶12

Collector Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶13

Ritu Sharma D/o Shri Purushottam Sharma, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Shanti Residency, Besides Colour Mall, Near Ganga Diagnosis, Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶14

Manmohan Singh Gaba S/o Shri Harpreet Singh Gaba Aged About 47 Years, R/o Flat No. 1113, B-Wing Samarthdeep Building No. 11, Off Valavalkar Road, Oshivara, Saraswat Bank, Andheri (W), Mumbai Maharastra

¶15

(Deleted) M/s Shine City Dream Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Deleted As Per Honble Court Order Dated- 10-02-2023

¶16

(Deleted) M/s Shine City Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Deleted As Per Honble Court Order Dated-10-02-2023

¶17

(Deleted) M/s Shine Gen X Private Limited Deleted As Per Honble Court Order Dated- 10-02-2023

¶18

---- Respondents

¶19

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶20

For Petitioners : Mr. Himanshu Sinha, Advocate.

¶21

For State/Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Deputy Govt. Advocate. For Respondents No.4 and 5 :- Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sachidanand Yadav, Advocate.

¶22

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶23

Order on Board

¶24

Per Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.

¶25

¶26

13-12-2023

¶27

The petitioners have claimed in the present writ petition to quash the FIR No.0592/2022 dated 01-12-2022 (AnnexureP/1) filed against the petitioners at Police Station D.D. Nagar, Raipur and order dated 19-01-2022 (Annexure-P/2).

¶28

The petitioners have claimed following reliefs in there writ petition:-

¶29

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned F.I.R. No.0592/2022 dated 01.12.2022 (Annexure P/1) filed against the petitioner at P.S.-D.D. Nagar, Raipur, Distt – Raipur (C.G.) and order dated 19.01.2022 (Annexure P/2).

¶30

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ directing the respondents to call for the entire records pertaining to the F.I.R. no.0592/2022.

¶31

10.3 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may be passed.”

¶32

Brief facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioners in this writ petition are that, one Neelam Agrawal was owner of the land admeasuring 7000 sq.ft. of Khasra No.360/10 and 362/423 situated at Village Raipura, P.H. No.104/57 Tahsil and District Raipur. Neelam Agrawal has sold the land to M/s

¶33

¶34

Shine City Dream Realtors Pvt. Ltd. through a registered sale deed dated 16-02-2018. On 19-08-2019 the said M/s Shine City Dream Realtors Pvt. Ltd. entered into an agreement to sell the aforesaid land to M/s Hope Enterprises which is proprietorship firm of petitioner No.2. Pursuant to the agreement dated 19-08-2019 the power of attorney holder Mohd. Javed of M/s Shine City Dream Realtors Pvt. Ltd. executed sale deed on 20-05-2021 in favour of petitioner No.3 Rupesh Choubey. After execution of the sale deed , the petitioner No.3 has got mutated his name in the revenue record after following the due procedure for the same.

¶35

It is also pleaded in the writ petition that petitioner No.1 has purchased the subject property situated over Khasra No.362/1, 360/1, 360/2 and 360/3 admeasuring 7000 sq. ft. situated at Village Raipura, P.H. No.104/56 Tahsil and District Raipur through registered purchase deed dated 23-07-2021 and after its purchase the petitioner No.1 incurred huge expenses in its renovation for the purposes of his restaurant business. It is also pleaded in the writ petition that during the process of renovation respondent No.4 came on the spot on 18-08-2021 and asked the petitioner No.1 to vacate the building and informed that she is the owner of the property and representative of respondent No.5. Subsequently, respondent No.4 started creating nuisance in the property

¶36

¶37

and started making complaint before various authorities to get the premises vacated. On 02-08-2021 the Patwari of the concerned patwari halka has made a report that the sale deed of the subject land has been registered twice one in the name of respondents No.5 and other is in the name of Rupesh Choubey, petitioner No.3. In the meanwhile, the petitioner No.1 has made application for mutation of his name in the revenue records and the revenue authorities took the matter in suo moto revision against mutation order in favour of Rupesh Choubey, petitioner No.3 and the application made by petitioner No.1 and suo moto revision were clubed and heard together. On 23-10-2021 the case was heard and the revenue authority has upheld the mutation done in favour of Rupesh Choubey, petitioner No.3 and rejected the objection of respondent No.5 and further directed to get mutated the name of petitioner No.1 and further directed to approach court of competent jurisdiction to settle the title of respective parties.

¶38

The respondent No.4 on behalf of respondent No.5 made complaints to respondent No.3 Collector Raipur for conducting enquiry with respect to the various sale deeds. The Additional Collector Raipur directed the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Raipur to conduct enquiry into the sale deeds executed in favour of different persons for the same

¶39

¶40

property. During pendency of the enquiry by the SubDivisional Officer (Revenue), the respondent No.3 directed the police to register FIR against the sellers of registered sale deed dated 20-03-2021 and 20-05-2021. The petitioner No.1 has filed a civil suit for declaration of sale deed executed in favour of respondent No.5 and Rashid Nasim as null and void and also for grant of permanent injunction. The trial Court has granted temporary injunction on 20-06-2022 in favour of petitioner No.1 and directed respondent No.5 and his representatives not to interfere with the possession of petitioner No.1 over the property.

¶41

The respondent No.1 has registered the FIR on 19-012022 on the instruction and direction of respondent No.3 against Javed, Rupesh Kumar Choubey and others. It is pleaded that although the FIR does not specifically named of petitioner No.1 and 2, however, they apprehend that the FIR is also against “and others” which they consider that the FIR is against petitioners No.1 and 2 also. Therefore, they impugn the said FIR dated 01-12-2022 for quashing of the same.

¶42

The respondents No.4 and 5 have filed their return and have submitted that the subject property is Plot No.A-10 and 11 admeasuring 7000 s.ft. of Sector 2 which form part of Khasra No.360/10, 362/43 of Agrasen Nagar established by Agroha

¶43

¶44

Housing Construction Cooperative Society Ltd. The husband of Neelam Agrawal had purchased the said property through registered sale deed dated 03-10-2002. After death of her husband, Neelam Agrawal has sold the property to Mohd. Asif Nasim through registered sale deed dated 01-02-2018 who was resident of Lucknow (Uttar Pradesh). The firm M/s Shine City Dream Realtor Pvt. Ltd. is a partnership firm and Asif Nasim is a partner in firm along with other person Rashid Nasim and both are resident of Lucknow (Uttar Pradesh). The petitioner No.3 Rupesh Choubey is the witness of sale deed dated 01-02-2018. Asif Nasim has signed the sale deed as partner. When petitioner No. 2 and 3 came to learn that respondent No.5 is successful in purchasing the property from Asif Nasim, they hatched conspiracy to hold the property. An agreement was executed by Asif Nasim on 1908-2019 in the capacity of partner of M/s Shine City Dream Realtor. Mohd. Javed was witness No.3 in the said agreement dated 19-08-2019. Subsequently they executed sale deed on 19-05-2021 showing to be the Director of the said Shine City Dream Realtier and subsequently claiming right over the property by the petitioners. Mohd. Javed who was a witness of the agreement dated 19-08-2018 was never given any power of attorney by the owner Asif Nasim or his firm. It is also pleaded in reply that on 18-05-2021 the sale

¶45

¶46

deed was executed in the name of M/s Shine City Dream Realtor in the parking lot of the Sub-Registrar office, Raipur which proves that to avoid biometric identification as seller which clearly shows premeditation of the minds of the petitioners to cheat and defraud the original owner as also the answering respondents. It is also pleaded that Mohd. Javed has used the same seal of partner of Shine City Dream Realtor which clearly appears to have been stolen/duplicated by the petitioners to forge the false sale deed. Mohd. Javed has also executed an affidavit dated 2005-2021 as Mohd. Asif Nasim. The sale deed is also shown to be executed by Asif Nasim, but everywhere signatures are of Mohd. Javed. Further, the authorization letter dated 25-112019 shows five directors of Shine City Dream Realtor whereas the aforesaid firm is partnership firm with only two persons. This false document has been used by the petitioners to somehow cheat the answering respondents by forgery and impersonation.

¶47

The petitioner No.2 to obtain benefit from the illegal sale deed and has executed affidavit on 15-05-2021 stating therein that the money paid by him vide earlier agreement dated 01-08-2019 would be given to him because he is financially unable to complete the sale. The answering respondents brought it to the pleading that the partner Asif

¶48

¶49

Nasim issued special power of attorney in favour of Mr. Aamir Khan on 10-02-2021 in Dubai for specific performance of selling the property in question. The said power of attorney holder Aamir Khan has sold the property to respondent No.5 through registered sale deed dated 20-03-2021 with proper authorization, which is true and legal transaction in favour of respondent No.5. On 25-08-2021 a categorical declaration has already been given by Asif Nasim that he has sold the property to respondent No.5.

¶50

The answering respondents further pleaded that the sale deed was got executed on 19-05-2021 and from very next day, i.e., on 20-05-2021 the petitioners got their names mutated in the revenue records, which apparently fishy in itself. The seller is shown to be as Asif Nasim whereas the application of mutation (undated) is signed by Mohd. Javed. Further, the public notice has been issued on 16-06-2021. It is further pleaded that mutation order dated 20-05-2021 has not been uploaded in the website of the revenue department. It is further pleaded that the petitioner No.1 is mastermind behind the entire offence. The impersonator Mohd. Javed who has been shown as power of attorney holder of M/s Shine City Dream Realtor has made an application before respondent No.2 on 13-01-2023 and prayed for making him approver and has submitted his affidavit dated 12-01-2023.

¶51

¶52

It is also pleaded that upon the report made by Patwari Revenue Case No. 202108114500001 was registered. The Tahsildar did not initiate any suo moto revision, but sent the case to Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Raipur for permission to review its earlier mutation order. The permission was granted by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Raipur vide order dated 31-08-2021 with condition that all the interested persons must be given opportunity of hearing before passing any order on merits. The Additional Tahsildar (2AA) Raipur clubbed all the cases together. The Additional Tahsildar without any enquiry proceeded ex-parte against the original owner/Asif Nasim. The Additional Tahsildar Raipur has allowed the mutation done in favour of petitioner No.3 by holding that the authorization letter issued in favour of Mohd. Javed is more authentic because it contains signatures of all the board members. The fact is that the firm is not a company at all and there are no Board Members and only partner in the firm and the Additional Tahsildar has passed the mutation order on 23-10-2021 which was under challenge before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and the appeal is pending for consideration. Feeling aggrieved by the fraud committed by the petitioners hand in glove with the revenue authorities, respondent No.4 approached to the Superintendent of Police Raipur and

¶53

¶54

submitted a written complaint on 02-11-2021. A complaint has already been given to the Collector because the subordinate revenue authorities are under administrative control of the Collector as provided under Section 12(3) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code. The Additional Collector has called a verification report on the facts stated in the complaint letter. The answering respondents were running pillar to post by knocking doors of the authorities and in this regard he has made another complaint before the Senior Superintendent of Police Raipur on 18-02-2022. It is further pleaded by the answering respondents that after filing of the civil suit the petitioner No.1 challenged the order passed by the SubDivisional Officer (Revenue) by which the permission to review was granted to the Tahsildar. The filing of the civil suit and revenue revision is nothing but a coverup exercise and when the facts of the case are giving rise to a criminal liability and civil liability both, then the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed. The police has registered the FIR on 01-122022 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the IPC on the complaint of the answering respondent No.4 made on 1208-2021 and subsequent enquiry made by the police on the basis of letters issued by the Collector. The aforesaid Mohd. Javed who has impersonated as Asif Nasim and sold the property to petitioner No.3 vide sale deed dated 18-05-2021

¶55

¶56

has also filed a petition for quashing of the FIR No.592/2022 vide CRMP No.2113/2022 in which notices have been issued, in the meantime Mohd. Javed has moved an application for becoming approver.

¶57

It is further pleaded that the petitioners have failed to make out a case in any of the categories stated settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court justifying quashing of the FIR in its inception and not allowing the legitimate prosecution of the petitioners to reach its logical conclusion. The petition has suffered with suppression of material facts, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶58

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that present one is purely a civil dispute which has been given colour of criminal liability. The sale deed has been executed in favour of petitioner No.1 is valid sale deed executed by duly authorized person. The civil suit has already been filed by the petitioner No.1 in which temporary injunction has also been granted in his favour. Mohd. Javed was the power of attorney holder who executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner No.3 and then the petitioner No.3 executed the sale deed in favour of petitioner No.1. There is no illegality or irregularity or even any fraud in the said transaction. The title suit is pending before the competent civil Court. He would further submit that from the over all transaction as well as the orders

¶59

¶60

passed by the revenue authorities regarding mutation of the name of petitioner No.1, no criminal liability can be fastened upon the petitioners and only to create pressure upon the petitioners the FIR has been registered by the police with connivance of the respondents and therefore, the impugned FIR as well as the order dated 19-01-2022 is liable to be quashed.

¶61

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the investigation is going on. The subject property was sold to respondent No.5 in the earlier point of time. The petitioner No.1 created dummy transaction acting as Director of the firm and made a sale deed in favour of petitioner No.1. The sale deed was at the parking lot of Registry office to avoid biometric identification which clearly shows their premeditation of the minds to cheat the respondent No.5. He would further submit that the sale deed was executed in favour of petitioner No.3 on 20-05-2021 and on the very next day the mutation was done in the name of the petitioner No.3 Rupesh Choubey. After mutating the name of petitioner No.3 public notice was issued on 16-062021. He would further submit that Mohd. Javed has given his statement that he is engaged in business of plaster of Paris work, he does not know any company and under pressure of the petitioners he executed the sale deed. The

¶62

¶63

nature of transaction itself shows the colourfull exercise of their power by the revenue authorities in favour of the petitioners which requires investigation by the police. He would further submit that mere pendency of the civil suit criminal prosecution is not barred to investigate any matter by the police and therefore, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶64

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶65

In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-

¶66

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:

¶67

Where the allegations made in the first information report or

¶68

¶69

the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

¶70

Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

¶71

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶72

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶73

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal

¶74

proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

¶75

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with

¶76

¶77

mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

¶78

We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.”

¶79

In the case of Vijayander Kumar and Others vs. State of

¶80

Rajasthan and Another reported in (2014) 3 SCC 389 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph No. 12 as under :-

¶81

"12. Learned counsel for the respondents is correct in contending that a given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence and only because a civil remedy may also be available to the informant/complainant that itself cannot be a ground to quash a criminal proceeding. The real test is whether the allegations in the complaint discloses a criminal offence or not. This proposition is supported by several judgments of this Court as noted in paragraph 16 of judgment in the case of Ravindrakumar Madhanlal Goenka and Another V. Rugmini Ram Raghav Spiners Private Limited [2009] 11 SCC 529.

¶82

¶83

11. In the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Ishwar Piraji

¶84

Kalpatri and others, reported in 1996 SCC (1) 542 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 24 of the said decision as follows:-

¶85

“24. The position of law, in this regard, has been very succinctly stated in the abovesaid case that at the stage of quashing an First Information Report or complaint, the High Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made therein…...”

¶86

12. In the case of Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd vs Rajvir

¶87

Industries Ltd. & Ors, reported in 2008 (13) SCC 678 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 22 of the judgment that :

¶88

“22. Ordinarily, a defence of an accused although appears to be plausible should not be taken into consideration for exercise of the said jurisdiction. Yet again, the High Court at that stage would not ordinarily enter into a disputed question of fact. It, however, does not mean that documents of unimpeachable character should not be taken into consideration at any cost for the purpose of finding out as to whether continuance of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of court or that the complaint petition is filed for causing mere harassment to the accused. While we are not oblivious of the fact that although a large number of disputes should ordinarily be determined only by the civil courts, but criminal cases are filed only for achieving the ultimate goal, namely, to force the accused to pay the amount due to the complainant immediately.

¶89

¶90

The courts on the one hand should not encourage such a practice; but, on the other, cannot also travel beyond its jurisdiction to interfere with the proceeding which is otherwise genuine. The courts cannot also lose sight of the fact that in certain matters, both civil proceedings and criminal proceedings would be maintainable."

¶91

In the case of Asoke Basak v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. , reported in (2010) 10 SCC 660 has held on para 16 of the judgment that:-

¶92

“16.Before examining the merits of the rival submissions, it would be appropriate to briefly notice the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code. It needs little emphasis that although the jurisdiction of the High Court under the said provision is very wide but it is not unbridled. The High Court is required to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code sparingly, carefully and cautiously, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice and to prevent abuse of the process of court. One of the situations when the High Court would be justified in invoking its powers is where the allegations in the first information report or the complaint, as the case may be, taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged. (See R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 866] and Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [(1995) 6 SCC 194])."

¶93

The Hon'ble Supreme Court i n the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in AIR Online 2021 SC 192 held in para 23

¶94

¶95

held as under:-

¶96

“23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or “no coercive steps to be adopted”, during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during the investigation or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under:

¶97

i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence;

¶98

ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences;

¶99

iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;

¶100

iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).

¶101

v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;

¶102

vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

¶103

vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule;

¶104

viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere;

¶105

ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;

¶106

x) Save in exceptional cases where noninterference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not

¶107

¶108

interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;”

¶109

Revering to the facts of the present case, from perusal of the

¶110

FIR it appears that the allegations requires investigation by the police. The nature of the allegations made in the FIR as well as the allegation of impersonation as also repeated execution of sale deed in favour of different persons, further on the very next day of execution of sale deed the property was mutated in the name of purchaser without issuance of notice to the opposite party and public notice smells some sort of culpable set of mind which requires complete investigation for which the FIR has been registered and the police concerned proceeded for enquiry.

¶111

From the aforesaid reasons as well as in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various pronouncements and applying well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, no good ground is made out by the petitioners for quashing of the FIR and as such the petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶112

No order as to cost(s).

¶113

The interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶114

Sd/Sd/-

¶115

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶116

Aadil

Krishnakant Ramavatar Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnakant Ramavatar Tiwari 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

M/s Shridhar Bohidar and Company Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Adim Jati Seva Sahkari Samiti Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Bihari Rajput Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

M/s Radhe Shyam Agrawal Partner Sanjay Agrawal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr.

Adhik Gupta Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Mithoo Lal Agrawal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh