Dismissed¶33

Manish Kumar Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Jun 2024CRMP/207/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Cr.M.P. No. 207 of 2022, decided 18.06.2024 (Ramesh Sinha, CJ; Sachin Singh Rajput, J): petition under s.482 Cr.P.C./Art. 226 to quash FIR dated 03/12/2021 (ss. 186, 294, 506, 353 IPC, P.S. City Kotwali, Bilaspur) and final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. dated 10/01/2022 refused; quashing jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases; no interference where charge-sheet filed, charges framed and trial at prosecution-evidence stage; abuse of process plea rejected; NAFR.

What did the court decide?

The jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases, and courts should not ordinarily interfere with investigations of cognizable offences. ¶31

Manish Kumar Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR dated 03/12/2021 (crime no. 390/21), the final report under s.173 Cr.P.C. dated 10/01/2022, and the criminal proceedings arising therefrom are liable to be quashed as false, fabricated and an abuse of the process of law. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

¶31

Ratio / Principle

By way of exception, an FIR or charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution or inherent powers under s.482 Cr.P.C. where the allegations, even taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence.

¶31

Key takeaways

On the facts, since the charge-sheet had been filed, charges framed and the trial was in progress at the stage of recording prosecution evidence, the Court found no good ground to interfere and dismissed the petition under s.482 Cr.P.C.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under s.482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of an FIR dated 03/12/2021 (crime no. 390/21 as per the prayer clause; recorded as Crime No. 104/21 in the body of the order) for offences under sections 186, 294, 506, 353 IPC at Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur, and of the final report under s.173 Cr.P.C. dated 10/01/2022, alleging false implication in connection with removal of bamboo poles from government land. HELD: (i) the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or charge-sheet is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases, and courts should not ordinarily interfere with investigations of cognizable offences, though an FIR/charge-sheet may be quashed under Article 226 or s.482 Cr.P.C. where the allegations, even taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence; (ii) where the charge-sheet has been filed, charges have been framed and the trial is at the stage of recording prosecution evidence, there is no good ground to interfere. Petition dismissed. (Marked NAFR.)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

Cr.M.P. No. 207 of 2022

¶4

Manish Kumar Agrawal, S/o Late Sh. Shankar Lal Agrawal, aged about 51 Years, R/o Ward No. 30, House No. 54, Subhasha Nagar, Gondpara, P.S. City Kotwali, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶5

Rajanish Kumar Tamrakar, S/o Jai Prakash Tamrakar, aged about 46 Years, R/o Near Sao Dharmshala, Kenwatpara, Near Pump House Juna Bilaspur, P.S. City Kotwali, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶6

---- Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Superintendent Of Police, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶9

S.H.O. Police Station City Kotwali Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶10

---- Respondents

¶11

Cause-title taken from Case Information System

¶12

__________________________________________________________ For Petitioners : Mr. Abhijeet Sarkar, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Panel Lawyer.

¶13

__________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶16

18.06.2024

¶17

Heard Mr. Abhijeet Sarkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Pankaj Singh, learned Panel Lawyer, appeared for the Respondents/State.

¶18

The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer:

¶19

“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this

¶20

-2-

¶21

Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case and allow the instant petition and further be pleased the Final report under section 173 Cr.P.C. filed on 10/01/2022 by the Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (Annexure P/2) and false and fabricated FIR registered against the petitioners on 03/12/2021 bearing crime no. 390/21 offence under section 186, 294, 506, 353 of IPC at Police Statioin City Kotwali, Bilaspur (Annexure P/1), in the interest of justice.”

¶22

Facts of the case in brief is that there is obstruction in government work while removing Bamboo poles from Government land. In compliance of the order of Additional Commissioner, Complainant had gone to Sanichari Bazaar for compliance of the order but petitioners along-with other person used filthily language and started threatening the Government Servant to kill him, strangulating the neck of complainant in the Public place where many reporter and other officials were present. Thereafter, complaint was lodged and FIR was registered

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the Police has registered the false and fabricated case against the petitioners

¶24

-3-

¶25

/accused with mala-fide intention.

¶26

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on the basis of above report, the Crime No. 104/21 has been registered against the petitioners for the offence punishable under section 186, 294, 506, 353 of the IPC and upon completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Court below, from where the case has been committed to the trial Court. He submits that on the basis of material available on record, the learned trial court has framed the charges against the petitioners.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the impugned FIR, final report and criminal proceedings pending before the Court below are bad in law. Hence, the impugned prosecution of the petitioners is abuse of process of law and it is futile exercise of proceedings, therefore, the impugned criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners is liable to be quashed.

¶28

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and further submits that after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioners before the competent Court and the charges have also been framed against the petitioner.

¶29

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

¶30

-4-

¶31

The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if 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, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

¶32

In the present case, admittedly, after completion of the investigation,charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioners and the charges have also been framed against the petitioners and the trial is in progress and is at the stage of recording prosecution evidence.

¶33

In that view of the matter, hence, at this stage, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the present case, accordingly, the instant petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

¶34

Sd/- Sd/(Sachin Singh Rajput) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶35

Ashish

Manish Kumar Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Kumar Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Banwari Lal Yadv Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Soman Nirmalkar and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Neela Sahu Vs Mahesh Kumar Potai

Shri Sita Rice Mill Vs Union of India

Santosh Prasad Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Raja @ Raj @ Shailesh Vs State of Chhattisgarh