Vikas Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Vikas Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

1

2024:CGHC:34980

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRMP No. 1306 of 2019

Vikas Agrawal S/o Late Shri Maliram Agrawal Aged About 45 Years R/o Soumya Beauty Parlour, Behind Ramdev Rice Mill, Mungeli Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Police Station Civil Lines, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

... Petitioner

versus

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

2 - Anoop Agrawal S/o Late Maliram Agrawal Aged About 49 Years R/o A/249, Near Omkareshwar Temple, House Of Nidhish Choubey, Ageye Nagar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

... Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Chetan Singh Chouhan, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ashish Surana, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

09.09.2024

2

Heard Mr. Chetan Singh Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent and Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following prayer :-

“3.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned First Information Report registered 09.04.2019 and Charge Sheet filed in Crime No. 0369/2019 (Annexure-P/1) against the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 323, 294, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) against the petitioners;

3.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s)/ order(s) in favour of petitioners, which deemed fit & just in the facts & circumstances of the case.

Facts of the case, in brief, is that on partition among the petitioner, respondent No. 2 and Vinay Agrawal (all three are real brothers) the petitioner has received land bearing Khasra no. 411/51 and 412/25 measuring 3924 square feet. The revenue records were mutated in name of petitioner. The respondent No. 2 being property dealer got the account opened in the Bilaspur Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited in name of petitioner and respondent no. 2 operated the said account Nо. 1003100443028741. The respondent No. 2 got issued cheque book and used to operate bank account taking advantage of

3

petitioner's innocence. The respondent No. 2 cheated the petitioner and got the sale deed on 13.07.2016 of part of petitioner’s land measuring 1500 square feet in favour of one Deepa Dewangan and withdrew the entire amount. On 27.04.2017 the respondent No. 2 got a Pre-Litigation suit filed in the permanent lok adalat by Vinay Agrawal wherein prayer was made that the sale deed executed by Vinay Agrawal in favour of Usha Singh will be set aside and petitioner will execute the sale deed of his land in favour of Usha Singh. The respondent No. 2 with Vinay Agrawal and advocate Manish Verma in connivance without any opportunity of hearing to petitioner got the Pre-Litigation Suit referred to Permanent Lok Adalat on 13.05.2017. Thereafter, on 10.06.2017, the petitioner was asked to come to District Court to sign document for correction of sale deed executed by Vinay Agrawal as wrong khasra number has been mentioned in sale deed and petitioner is required as witness in the court. On 19.07.2017 the respondent No. 2 asked the petitioner come to the Registry office and asked to sign the document as witness and got the sale deed executed with respect to the petitioner land. The fraud done by the respondent is apparent from the sale deed dated 19.07.2017 which has been fraudulently got executed mentioning the same cheque number and amount which were sale consideration in sale deed executed by Vinay Agrawal. On 25.07.2017 the petitioner came to know that his brothers have got the award in pre litigation suit against the petitioner on 10.06.2017. Earlier, the complaint was filed by the petitioner against the respondent No. 2 and other co accused has been dismissed by the

4

trial court on 18.04.2018. The petitioner has filed the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C against the respondent No. 2 and other co accused in which notices have been issued by the Hon'ble High Court on 22.01.2019. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 with malafide intention and to harass the petitioner has lodged the false report against the petitioner for offence under Section 294, 323 and 506 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the respondent No.1 has registered the crime against the petitioner without verifying the veracity of the report. He further submits that the respondent No.2 has lodged the false report against the petitioner for alleged offence to harass and pressurize the petitioner to withdraw the civil and criminal cases lodged against the respondent No.2. He further submitted that the the respondent No.1 has filed the charge-sheet merely on the statement of the complainant without conducting a full, fair & independent investigation. It is further submitted that out of six witnesses, statements of only two witnesses have been recorded till date. Thus, he further submitted that the trial may be expedited.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondent pointed out that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case against the petitioner and charges have been framed.

We have heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and prayer made in the petition.

5

After having gone through the allegations made in the impugned FIR it cannot be said that no prima facie offence is disclosed against the petitioner on the material collected during the investigation. Further, in the present case, charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner, charges have been framed and two witnesses have been examined.

Accordingly, at this stage, no interference is warrant in the matter. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed of.

SD/SD/(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

Amardeep