Dismissed

Sandesh Khandelwal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC9 Jul 2024CRMP/1803/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of a charge-sheet filed for offences under sections 294 and 506 of the IPC. The court found no merit in the petition as a cognizable offence was disclosed and multiple serial cases existed between the parties.

What did the court decide?

The petition seeking quashing of the charge-sheet was dismissed as being devoid of merits.

Sandesh Khandelwal Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 1803 of 2024

¶4

Sandesh Khandelwal S/o Late Shri Satish Khandelwal , Aged About 42 Years R/o Mudliyar Colony, Station Para, Ward No. 12 PS Chikhali, Rajnandgaon, District Rajanandgaon, C.G.

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Rajnandgaon Kotwali, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, C.G.

¶8

Kumari Soniya Sahu Station Para, Ward No. 12, Police Chouky Chikhali, Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon C.G.

¶9

---- Respondents

¶10

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶11

For Petitioner :Mr. Manohar Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State :Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶14

Judgment on Board

¶15

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶16

10.07.2024

¶17

1. Heard Mr. Manohar Dewangan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1/State.

¶18

2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer:

¶19

“It is therefore respectfully prayed that the

¶20

Hon'ble Court may be kindly be pleased to allow

¶21

this petition and quash the Charge-Sheet, filed in

¶22

¶23

Criminal Case No. 7780/2023 before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) which is arise from F.I.R. No. 0522/2023 lodged at Police Station Rajnandgaon Kotwali, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) dated 13/07/2023 against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 294, 506 of Indian Penal Code,

¶24

1860, in the interest of justice.”

¶25

3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this case are that the petitioner operate a fair price shop at Station Para Rajnandgaon. There was love affairs between petitioner and respondent No.2. When respondent No.2 put pressure on the petitioner to marry her, but the petitioner refused to it. On refusing to marry, respondent No. 2 lodged FIR on 04.05.2023 against the petitioner for offence under Sections 294, 376, 506 of the IPC, which is registered as Crime No. 0308/2023 at Police Station Kotwali Rajnandgaon. After lodging the FIR, the petitioner was arrested by the police and sent to Jail. The competent Court allowed the third regular bail application of the petitioner on 01.07.2023 and at present the petitioner is on bail in the said crime. Even before this, the respondent No. 2 has lodged FIR against the petitioner in the year 2019 for offence under Sections 294, 323 and 506 of the IPC. This FIR is registered as Crime No. 0467/2019 at Police Station Rajnandgaon Kotwali, Rajnandagaon. In Crime No. 308/2023, the matter was heard by the learned trial Court on 13.07.2023. On the same day, the respondent No. 2 lodged third FIR which is registered as Crime No.0522/2023

¶26

¶27

for offence punishable under Sections 294 and 506 of the IPC. In this FIR, the respondent No. 2 has alleged that the petitioner threatened her in the court premises to withdraw the F.I.R's. During the cross examination before the learned trial Court, the respondent No.2 admitted in para 8 of the statement that there was a love affair between the petitioner and her. In cross-examination, the respondent No. 2 has also stated that while writing the F.I.R. she hidden the matter of love affair. Further in para 10 of the statement, the respondent No. 2 has stated that while existing dispute, she had also undergone counseling at Mahila Prakosth and Sakhi Center, Rajnandgaon. After this there was a settlement between two. In relation to the false F.I.R. registered against the petitioner, an application has been submitted by the petitioner before the Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon and made a request to cancel the registered F.I.R. No. 0522/2023 against the petitioner. Presently the application is pending before the authority. Thus, this petition.

¶28

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the complaint, which is main part of charge-sheet, the respondent No.2 admitted that she had love affairs with the petitioner 10 years ago. Further, according to the charge-sheet, there is no any independent witness in the present case. The name of only one witness is Kumari Nidhi Sahu D/o Chandika Prasad Sahu, who is sister of the respondent No.2 and she is an interested witness. Later, it is not possible that there is not even single eyewitness which took place during the working day in the District Court premises and is an

¶29

¶30

independent witness. As per the statement of witness No.1 Kumari Nidhi Sahu, she too did not see this incident happening and she was informed about this incident by her sister i.e. respondent No.2. Later, the respondent No.2 is angry because the learned trial Court has granted bail to the petitioner in earlier Crime No. 0308/2023. Thus, respondent no. 2 repeatedly lodged false and fabricated FIR against the petitioner, because she did not want the petitioner to get out of jail. He also submits that the respondent No. 2 has already lodged an FIR against the petitioner under serious offence, due to which the petitioner had to in Jail. The impugned FIR is false and baseless and only to harass and spoil the career and social status of the petitioner. Therefore the charge-sheet filed by the police before the learned trial Court in Crime Nо.0522/2023 is liable to be quashed.

¶31

5. On the other hand, learned Panel Layer appearing for respondent No.1/State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that after due investigation, the Police has filed the charge-sheet before the jurisdictional Criminal Court. As such, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶32

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition.

¶33

7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, contents of the FIR and the fact that charge-sheet has already been filed and it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is disclosed against the petitioner and further there appears to be

¶34

¶35

series of criminal cases going on between the parties, hence, we do not find any good ground for interference in this case.

¶36

8. Accordingly, petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed .

¶37

Sd/- Sd/-

¶38

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

¶39

Bablu

Sandesh Khandelwal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandesh Khandelwal 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

Gulchand @ Gulsan Sonwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kamta Prasad Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhagwan Singh Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vinod Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Avinash Kumar Chandravanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Senior Divisional Manager Vs Ratna Sahu