Kunal Kedia Vs State of Chhattisgarh

“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the FIR as well as entire Charge-sheet dated 14.06.2024 filed against the petitioners under Section 287, 338 of I.P.C. in Crime No. 242/2024 P.S- Akaltara, DisttJanjgir- Champa (C.G.), further this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quashed the proceeding of the case, pending before- Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.-560/2024, in the interest of justice.”

¶22

3. Brief facts of the case are that on17.5.2024, the complainant has lodged a written complaint before the Police Station- Akaltara, District: Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) alleging that, his name is Dilip Kumar and he is resident of Village- Kirari, District: JanjgirChampa (C.G.), was working in under constructed storage of present petitioner, in which the complainant was operating mixture machine in which he was mixing cement, sand, and small stones for construction purpose. On 16.02.2024, the machine was not working properly regarding which he made complaint to the present petitioner but the contractor said to work in the machine by pouring burned engine oil, but then also the machine was not working properly. On 16.02.2024, complainant while operating the mixture machine, his right hand came under the said machine due to which his hand got injured and further, immediately he was taken to the doctor for treatment in the Hospital of Bilaspur and during treatment, his two fingers were amputated by the Doctor. When the present petitioner came to know about the said incident,

¶23

3 / 7

¶24

he gave assurance and also said to bear all the expenses of the treatment of the complainant, and the present petitioner had given some money to the complainant for his treatment and thereafter he did not give any amount for the further treatment of the complainant The complainant is a B.A. student and as his right hand has got injured and his two fingers were cut due to which he was not able to give his exam of B.A. final year. After receiving of the information, the police concerned has registered the crime against the petitioner for the alleged offence punishable under section- 287, 338 of IPC and investigated the matter and recorded 161 statement of the complainant as well as other witnesses, sent the complainant for medical examination, spot map was prepared and during the course of the investigation, also seized the aforesaid machine in the presence of witnesses and thereafter it handed over on supurdnama. The present petitioner was released on bail on 21.05.2024 and after completion of the investigation, the police officials of police Station-Akaltara, Dist-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). has filed charge-sheet against the petitioner for offence under Section- 287, 338 of I.P.C. before Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akaltara, Dist- Jangir-Champa (C.G.), which is under challenge in the present petition.

¶25

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case and he had not committed any offence as alleged either of Section- 287, 338 of I.P.C. The petitioner had not played any

¶26

4 / 7

¶27

active/passive role in committing the said offences. Even he did not have knowledge about the said offence. The complainant/ respondent no.2 did not get any permanent injury in his body part and had not faced any irreparable loss and the complainant is demanding Rs. 4 to 5 lakhs from the petitioner but not given any medical bills to the present petitioner. The preliminary enquiry has not been done cautiously by the officials concerned before registering the case of alleged offence against the present petitioner and has falsely been implicated in the case just to ruin his reputation in the society and to take undue advantage. The registration of the offences against the petitioner is clear abuse of the process of law because as per FIR lodged by the complainant prima facie no offence is made out against the present petitioner. If entire case of the prosecution would be taken in its own face value even than the ingredients of 287, 338 of I.P.C. will not be attracted against the present petitioner. She further argued that on the date of the incident, the complainant was employed under the contractor and not directly by the petitioner, and all the workers were covered with insurance policy (period from 22.9.2023 to 21.9.2024), therefore after accident occurred, the complainant had the remedy to approach before the Labour Court or appropriate forum, but despite that, after lapse of 3 months he has filed a complaint against the petitioner before the Police Station, and to get monitory benefits is threatening the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before the learned trial Court on 27.06.2024 and the

¶28

5 / 7

¶29

learned trial Court granted bail to the present petitioner.

¶30

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 / State opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that once the FIR has been registered, it has to be investigated and taken to its logical end. Thus, at this stage, no interference is warranted. He would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani reported in (2017) 2 SCC 779 , wherein the Supreme Court has observed that inherent power in a matter of quashment of FIR has to be exercised sparingly and with caution and when and only when such exercise is justified by the test specifically laid down in the provision itself. He would further rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 , wherein the Supreme Court has laid down that when a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations made out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR. Therefore, in the light of the above

¶31

6 / 7

¶32

mentioned judgments, the instant petition is absolutely misconceived and deserves to be dismissed.

¶33

6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the prayers and pleadings made in this petition.

¶34

7. The Supreme Court in the matter of Neharika Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an F.I.R./complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Now Section 528 of the BNSS) is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Supreme Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the F.I.R. in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Now Section 528 of the BNSS), only has to consider whether or not the allegations of F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit.

¶35

8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that the case is fixed for framing of the charges and hence, no good ground has been raised to interfere in the matter and quash the FIR at this stage.

¶36

7 / 7

¶37

9. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this petition. The petition lacks merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed , leaving it open to the petitioner to take all pleas before the trial Court.

¶38

Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha )

¶39

Judge Chief Justice

¶40

Manpreet

Kunal Kedia v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunal Kedia v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Hak Enterprises Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Durga Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Shanker Yadav And Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

M/s B. P. Agrawal Vs Bank Of Baroda

Duddu Prabhakar @ Duddu Vs Union of India

Chandrakant Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh