Chetan Shah Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Chetan Shah Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing not granted; petition disposed of with the observation that the trial shall proceed, with directions to the trial Court to secure the complainant/respondent No.2's presence and conclude the trial expeditiously.

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR (Crime No.102/2020, Police Station Ratanpur) for offences under Sections 376 and 201 IPC, the consequent charge sheet, and Sessions Trial No.688/2020 (State vs. Chetan Shah) pending before the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bilaspur, should be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Court's answer

Since charges have been framed and the trial is pending for recording of evidence before the trial Court, the Court found no good ground to interfere at that stage and declined to quash the FIR/charge sheet/trial, leaving it open to the petitioner to cooperate with the trial.

Ratio / Principle

The Court directed the learned trial Court to ensure the presence of the complainant/respondent No.2 (who, as stated, had failed to appear before the trial Court) and to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, if there is no other legal impediment.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur — CRMP No. 208 of 2021, decided 03.07.2024, per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice, with Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge. Petition by Chetan Shah under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. sought quashing of FIR Crime No.102/2020 registered at Police Station Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (complaint dated 12.02.2020) for offences under Sections 376 and 201 IPC, the consequent charge sheet, and Sessions Trial No.688/2020 (State vs. Chetan Shah) pending before the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bilaspur. Petitioner alleged the complainant (respondent No.2, named only as 'XYZ' per Section 228A IPC) had seduced him, recorded video clips, and extorted around Rs.90 lakhs in cash, Rs.46 lakhs by RTGS (HDFC) and Rs.2.26 lakhs (Axis) between 09.01.2019 and 17.02.2019; he had himself lodged a report leading to Crime No.365/2019 (Sections 384/34 IPC) against respondent No.2 and Ricky Sharma on 26.09.2019, following which she was jailed about 45 days and bailed via MCRC No.7080/2019 (order dated 07.11.2019); her Women Commission complaint (File No.2148) was closed unattended on 10.11.2020. Petitioner had obtained anticipatory bail in MCRC(A) No.447/2020 (order dated 22.06.2020); charges stood framed. Finding charges framed and trial pending for recording of evidence, the Court declined to interfere, left the petitioner to cooperate with the trial, and directed the trial Court to ensure respondent No.2's presence (she was statedly not attending trial or the petitioner's case) and to conclude the trial expeditiously, absent legal impediment. Petition disposed of. [NAFR]

-1-

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

CRMP No. 208 of 2021

Chetan Shah S/o Late Lalit Shah Aged About 39 Years R/o Flat No. B-201, Pam Bellagio, Near B.S.N.L. Office, Khamhardih, Shankar Nagar Raipur, Tehsil, Revenue And Civil District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

---- Petitioner

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Ratanpur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

XYZ (As per Section 228A of IPC)

---- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, Advocate For Respondent /State : Mr. Surendra Dewangan, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 : None

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

03.07.2024

Heard Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Also heard Mr. Surendra Dewangan learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

The instant petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been

-2-

filed by the petitioner for quashing of the FIR bearing Crime No.102/2020 registered at Police Station - Ratanpur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 201 of IPC, consequent charge sheet in Sessions Trial No.688/2020 (State vs. Chetan Shah), pending before the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bilaspur investigation/criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

Brief facts of case, according to the petitioner is that the petitioner was running business of Sanitary Hardware in the name of Bath Studio at Devendra Nagar, Raipur. Petitioner and complainant became friends through Facebook in the year 2012. As the parents of the complainant/respondent No.2 resided in the nearby area, the complainant started repeatedly visiting petitioner's shop. After some time, the complainant/respondent No.2 proposed him knowingly that the petitioner is a married man having a girl child. The complainant/respondent No.2 seduced the petitioner for intercourse, video clip got recorded by complainant and thereafter in the name of implication in false rape case and making viral of video clip started extorting money from the petitioner. Petitioner due to fear of society and ruining of his marriage, paid around Rs.90 lakhs in cash from own arrangements and borrowing money from friends and close

-3-

relatives. Apart from it, the complainant extorted Rs.46 lakhs from petitioner by RTGS mode from his HDFC bank account and Rs.2.26 lakhs from his Axis bank account between 09.01.2019 to 17.02.2019. The friend of complainant had extended threat to petitioner by e-mails, due to which the petitioner was constrained to sell his house situated at Shankar Nagar in order to repay the money borrowed from friends and close relatives. Fed up with their demands, after having lost everything, lodged a written report to Police Station Pandri on 21.09.2019, on which the Police registered Crime No.365/2019 against complainant/respondent No.2 and her associate Ricky Sharma on 26.09.2019 for offence punishable under Sections 384/34 of IPC. The complainant/respondent No.2 was arrested and remained in jail for around 45 days. Thereafter, her bail application bearing MCRC No.7080/2019 was allowed by this Court vide order dated 07.11.2019. After being released from jail, the complainant extended threat to the petitioner of false implication in rape case, which was well informed by the petitioner to Director General of Police, vide letter dated 20.12.2019.

Further, petitioner reported the same to the Senior Superintendent of Police by letter on 23.12.2019. Thereafter, in order to harass the petitioner, the complainant/respondent No.2 lodged complaint before Chhattisgarh State Women

-4-

Commission as File No.2148, but she never appeard before the said Commission, whereby same was closed by the said Commission on 10.11.2020 and to counter the report lodged by the petitioner against the respondent No.2 and her friend Ricky Sharma, she lodged written complaint to Station House Officer, Police Station, Ratanpur on 12.02.2020, in which it has been alleged that the petitioner had committed rape and unnatural intercourse and exploited her sexually by preparing obscene photographs and videos. It was also alleged that the petitioner had contacted the complainant on phone as they were having love affair and then taken her to Ratanpur area by Car. There, the petitioner had offered her intoxicated cold drink and committed unnatural intercourse and secretly prepared video clips. Thereafter, the petitioner on the basis of the video clipping, started sexually exploiting her and when she requested the applicant to marry, he refused and then, later on, she came to know in the year 2014, that the applicant was a married person having children. Thereafter, she lodged a report against the petitioner.

The petitioner had filed anticipatory bail application bearing MCRC(A) No.447/2020, before this Hon'ble Court and by order dated 22.06.2020, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to allow anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

In the instant petition the petitioner has prayed as below :

-5-

"It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the first information report for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, consequent charge-sheet and Session Trial No.688/2020 (State vs. Chetan Shah), pending before Additional Session Judge, (FTC), Bilaspur, in the interest of justice."

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the complainant is a woman and she has lodged the present FIR for the offence under Section 376 IPC which was registered against the petitioner way back on 12.02.2020. It is argued that the prosecution of the petitioner is nothing but misuse of process of law as the petitioner had lodged an FIR bearing Crime No.365/2019 on 26.09.2019 against the private respondent No.2 for offence under Section 384/34 of IPC for blackmailing and extortion of money and stated that he has paid more than one crore to the private respondent No.2.

On a pointed query made by this Court to the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the status of the trial in the present case, he states that the complainant/respondent No.2 is not appearing before the trial Court. Moreover, she is also not appearing in the case lodged by the petitioner hence, prays for the proceedings be quashed. The counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the charges have been framed against the present petitioner in the present case and

-6-

he has obtained anticipatory bail.

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

Considering the fact that the charges have been framed and the trial is pending for recording of evidence before the trial Court, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the matter at this stage, leaving it open to the petitioner to cooperate with the trial and we further direct the learned trial Court to ensure the presence of the complainant/respondent No.2 as it is stated she has failed to appear before the trial Court, and conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, if there is no other legal impediment.

With the aforesaid observation the petition is disposed of.

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

Ravi Mandavi

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
FIR Crime No.102/2020 registered at Police Station - Ratanpur, District - Bilaspur (complaint dated 12.02.2020 alleging rape and unnatural intercourse) for offences under Sections 376 and 201 IPC, consequent charge sheet, and Sessions Trial No.688/2020 (State vs. Chetan Shah) pending before the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bilaspur — the investigation/criminal proceedings sought to be quashed.¶¶22
Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bilaspur (Sessions Trial No.688/2020) · 12.02.2020
Prior proceeding
Complainant/respondent No.2 lodged written complaint to Station House Officer, Police Station, Ratanpur on 12.02.2020 alleging the petitioner committed rape and unnatural intercourse, prepared obscene photographs/videos, and sexually exploited her; this led to the impugned FIR Crime No.102/2020.¶¶28
Prior proceeding
Earlier, per the petitioner, he lodged a written report at Police Station Pandri on 21.09.2019, on which police registered Crime No.365/2019 against respondent No.2 and her associate Ricky Sharma on 26.09.2019 for offence punishable under Sections 384/34 IPC (blackmailing/extortion).¶¶25
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.2 was arrested and remained in jail for around 45 days; her bail application MCRC No.7080/2019 was allowed by this Court vide order dated 07.11.2019.¶¶25
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint before the Chhattisgarh State Women Commission (File No.2148) but never appeared; the Commission closed it on 10.11.2020.¶¶28
Prior proceeding
Petitioner filed anticipatory bail application MCRC(A) No.447/2020 before this Court; anticipatory bail was allowed by order dated 22.06.2020.¶¶29
Prior proceeding
Charges were framed against the petitioner and the trial is pending for recording of evidence before the trial Court; counsel submitted charges stand framed and petitioner has anticipatory bail.¶¶38
Prior proceeding
On a pointed query by the Court, petitioner's counsel stated that complainant/respondent No.2 is not appearing before the trial Court, nor in the case lodged by the petitioner.¶¶34