Deleted (Lakheshwar Rao Gawande) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

3. Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari S/o Late Nand Kumar Tiwari Aged About 37 Years R/o Junior MIG, 436 H, Sector I, Dindayal Upadhyay Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

and

¶13

CRMP No. 105 of 2021

¶14

1. Deleted (Lakheshwar Rao Gawande) as per Hon’ble Court orer dated 02-12-2021, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

2. Smt. Shanti Bhai W/o Lakheshwar Rao Gawande Aged About 56 Years R/o Behind Ram Mandir, Avadhpuri Colony, Bhathagaon, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

3. Preeti Rao Gawande W/o Haldhar Rao Gawande Aged About 37 Years R/o Behind Ram Mandir, Avadhpuri Colony, Bhathagaon, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶17

4. Rupesh Rao Gawande S/o Lakheshwar Rao Gawande Aged About 33 Years R/o Behind Ram Mandir, Avadhpuri Colony, Bhathagaon, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶18

---- Petitioners

¶19

Versus

¶20

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶21

2. Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari S/o Nandkumar Tiwari Aged About 41 Years R/o Junior MIG-436, H Sector 1, Deendayal Upadhyay Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶22

---- Respondents

¶23

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶24

2

¶25

For Petitioner	: Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate in CRMP No. 1903 of 2019.
For Petitioners	: Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate in CRMP No. 105 of 2021.
For Respondents/State	: Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Panel Lawyer in both the cases.
For Respondent No. 2	: Mr. Hemant Agrawal, Advocate.

¶26

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶27

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶28

Order on Board

¶29

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 11.07.2024

¶30

1. Heard Mr. Pusphendra Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner in CRMP No. 1903 of 2019 and Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the petitioners in CRMP No. 105 of 2021. Also heard Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State in both the cases and Mr. Hemant Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2 in CRMP No. 105 of 2021.

¶31

2. The CRMP No. 1903 of 2019 filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:

¶32

“ It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this application and quash the First Information Report, filed against the petitioner in connection with the Crime No. 0280 of 2019, filed against the petitioner before the Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), in the interest of justice. ”

¶33

3. The CRMP No. 105 of 2021 filed by the petitioners with the following prayer:

¶34

3

¶35

“ It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant 482 petition filed by the petitioners, quashing the FIR bearing No. 280/2019 registered at Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur and the entire charge-sheet filed by the Police and the criminal proceeding bearing Criminal Case No.159 of 2020 pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur may also kindly be quashed, so far as it relates to the petitioners are concerned. ”

¶36

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in CRMP No. 1903 of 2019 submits that the respondent No. 3, has lodged the FIR against the petitioner under Sections 406, 193/34 of the IPC in connection with Crime No. 280 of 2019, registered at Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.). The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner and his wife, namely, Preeti Rao Gavande, collecting the pupil of neighbour and collect the amount from them with doubling the amount to game the B.C., but the present petitioner by forgery collect the amount and not return the same. It is need to mentioned here that the allegation levelled against the petitioner are fake and frivolous and is liable to be quashed.

¶37

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in CRMP No. 105 of 2021 submits that the respondent No. 2 lodged the FIR on 03.08.2019 at Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur in respect of the incident alleged to have been occurred between 10.07.2012 to 03.08.2019. The FIR was lodged on the basis of the written complaint. The FIR of the incident was lodged inter-alia on the allegations that the wife of the respondent No. 2 and the wife of the main accused, namely, Haldhar Rao Gavande were known to each other. They are the Shiksha Karmi Grade-III. It was alleged that petitioner No. 2/

¶38

4

¶39

Preeti Rao has apprise the complainant in respect of the scheme for enhancement of the amount of investment. It was alleged that near about an amount of Rs. 53,75,000/- was invested and the said amount has been misappropriated by the main accused and his family members. It was alleged that under the pretext of making the amount double the said amount was invested by the complainant.

¶40

6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners in CRMP No. 105 of 2021 that the Police has registered the offence and investigated the entire matter and file the charge-sheet. Though the FIR was registered under Sections 406 and 193 read with Section 34 of the IPC and the final report has been lodged under the said provisions. The charges have not been framed against the accused persons. Admittedly, the respondent No. 2 herein and the main accused, namely, Haldhar Rao Gavande were the accused in Crime No. 154/2016 registered at Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur.

¶41

7. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur has convicted the complainant as well as the main accused in the instant case vide judgment and conviction dated 20.07.2017. The said judgment and conviction was challenged before the learned Additional Session Judge (Special Judge of Special Court of CBI Cases), Raipur, the learned Sessions Court vide judgment dated 06.09.2018 has acquitted the respondent No. 2 and has convicted the main accused Haldhar Rao Gavande. It is surprising that in the earlier criminal case the respondent No. 2 herein and the main accused, namely, Haldhar Rao Gavande were the accused in Crime No. 154/2016 registered at Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur and the allegations were that Haldhar Rao the main accused used to play B.C. and was collecting Rs. 1000/- and after 10 months he used to return an amount of Rs. 12000/-

¶42

5

¶43

on 12^th month. It was alleged that the complainant Shakuntala Parmar (Crime No. 154/2016) has collected an amount of Rs. 2,76,000/- from 23 members and deposited with main accused. It was alleged in the said criminal case that the amount so deposited by the members was to be handed over to the Akhilesh Tiwari and he used to pay the amount to the members. The allegations show that the complainant was also accused along with the main accused in the instant case and now the co-accused of crime No. 154/2016 has lodged the instant FIR on the same allegation and this time he claimed himself to be the complainant.

¶44

8. In the said complaint neither the name of the accused persons were there nor any allegations were levelled against them. The instant complaint is arising out of the same transaction on the basis of which the earlier complaint was lodged by Shakuntala Parmar. Neither in the defense in the said criminal case or in the appeal before the Appellate Authority any allegations were made against the petitioners. During the course of trial the statement of Investigating Officer was recorded and he has categorically admitted that there is no involvement of the family members of Akhilesh Tiwari.

¶45

9. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners in CRMP No. 105 of 2021 that the entire FIR and the allegations would be accepted on its face value, no offence is made out. That, earlier also the similar complaint was made by the complainant Akhilesh Tiwari and Police has investigated the entire matter and has reached the conclusion that no offence is made out. The Police has investigated the matter at length recorded the statements of the witnesses and also collected the documentary material. The complaint was investigated at the level of CSP and on the basis of the similar statements, similar material and the

¶46

6

¶47

documents. The Police has recorded that no offence is made out and now on the basis of the same material, same allegations the charge-sheet has been filed. He also submits that the complainant also made a complaint to the Inspector General of Police and the matter was investigated and the Senior Superintendent of Police vide its letter dated 27.03.2019 has informed the Inspector General that the complainant was himself an accused and was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. It appears that the complainant has falsely implicated the family members of main accused Haldhar Rao Gavande and just to create pressure. The allegations are baseless and there is no material has been collected by the Police to implicate the petitioners herein. Neither in the statement of the witnesses or in the entire criminal trial there were any allegations or findings have been recorded against the family members. The complainants defence statement was recorded in Criminal Case No. 12088/2016 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Raipur and in the said statement the complainant has categorically admitted that he was not playing B.C. and in fact, he has advance the loan to the main accused Haldhar Rao Gavande.

¶48

10. The conduct of the complainant itself shows that he has lodged the FIR with malafide intention. Earlier the complainant made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police on 13.04.2015 for the same amount alleging that he has obtained an amount of Rs. 53,75,000/- by playing fraud and by showing the land of others. The said complaint was investigated and ultimately it was found that no offence is made out. The the FIR, chargesheet and continuation of the criminal case would amount to abuse of process of law. No allegations or separate role has been attributed to the petitioners herein. If the entire allegation on the face would be accepted, no offence is made out either under Section 406 or Section 193 of the IPC.

¶49

7

¶50

There is no material in respect of the conspiracy or meeting of minds. Hence, this Court may kindly be pleased to allow the CRMP No. 105 of 2021 and the entire criminal proceedings along with the FIR as well as entire charge-sheet filed by the Police, may kindly be quashed.

¶51

11. On the other hand, learned State counsel and learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2 in CRMP No. 105 of 2021 oppose the prayer of quashing the entire criminal proceedings along with FIR as well as the entire charge-sheet and argued that the perusal of the material on record shows that the cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners.

¶52

12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶53

13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that petitioner No. 3, namely, Preeti Rao, who is the wife of the main accused, namely Haldhar Rao Gavande/petitioner in CRMP No. 1903 of 2019 has apprise the complainant in respect of the scheme for enhancement of the amount of investment and near about an amount of Rs. 53,75,000/- was invested and the said amount has been misappropriated by petitioner/Haldhar Rao Gavande in CRMP No. 1903 of 2019 and his wife petitioner No. 3/Preeti Rao in CRMP No. 105 of 2021 and from perusal of the FIR, it is evident that the cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner/Haldhar Rao Gavande in CRMP No. 1903 of 2019 and petitioner No. 3/Preeti Rao in CRMP No. 105 of 2021, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner/Haldhar Rao Gavande in CRMP No. 1903 of 2019 and petitioner No. 3/Preeti Rao in CRMP No. 105 of 2021 are directed to face the trial before the learned trial Court.

¶54

8

¶55

14. Accordingly, the CRMP No. 1903 of 2019 is dismissed .

¶56

15. So far as the petitioners No. 2 and 4 are concerned the nature of the allegation mentioned in the FIR as well as in the statement it appears that the involvement of petitioners No. 2 and 4 in CRMP No. 105 of 2021 and prosecution of the offences under Sections 406, 193 read with Section 34 of the IPC is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as it is mere harassment for the petitioners No. 2 and 4, who are family members of petitioner/Haldhar Rao Gavande in CRMP No. 1903 of 2019 and petitioner No. 3 in CRMP No. 105 of 2021 respectfully. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the entire criminal proceedings pending in Criminal Case No.159 of 2020 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) arising from FIR report bearing Crime No. 280 of 2019 registered at Police Station, Purani Basti, Raipur (C.G.) and final report submitted before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur against the petitioners No. 2 and 4 are hereby quashed.

¶57

16. Accordingly, the CRMP No. 105 of 2021 is partly allowed .

¶58

Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶59

Brijmohan

Deleted (Lakheshwar Rao Gawande) v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deleted (Lakheshwar Rao Gawande) v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Avinash Kumar Chandravanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sandesh Khandelwal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kashi Ram Chandra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chola Mandalam General Insurance Company Limited Vs Fulbas

M/S Kwality Traders, Vs the Commissioner Commercial Tax