Dismissed

Chandrakant Sinha v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Sept 2024CRMP/2357/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a petition for quashing an FIR and charge sheet. The petitioner, previously acquitted in a similar proceeding via compromise, argued the current case was an abuse of legal process. The Court held that no merit existed to interfere at the stage where framing of charges was imminent.

What did the court decide?

The petition to quash the FIR and criminal case was dismissed.

Chandrakant Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Quashing and FIR | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 5

2024:CGHC:33422-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRMP No. 2357 of 2024

¶6

Chandrakant Sinha S/o Janak Lal Sinha, Aged About 52 Years R/o Gram - Raksi, Block Chhura, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Home, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2 - The Station House Officer, Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3 - Mahesh Tiwari S/o Devdutt Tiwari, Aged About 36 Years R/o Village - Khola, Police Station-Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate

¶14

No.1 and 2 / State

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge

¶17

Judgment on Board

¶18

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶19

02.09.2024

¶20

1. Heard Mr. Raza Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2 / State.

¶21

2 / 5

¶22

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief:-

¶23

“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS and in exercise thereof admit the petition, call for the records and after hearing the parties in the matter, quashing the entire charge sheet in respect of FIR No.185/2022 and order of cognizance dated 08.08.2023 passed by the JMFC, Raipur, under Section 420 of IPC and in consequences quash the entire criminal case (i.e. case no. 11787/2022 between State Vs. Chandrakant Sinha) pending before the JMFC Raipur, being abuse of process of court and abuse of process of law and also in violation of petitioner's fundamental rights and in peculiar factual matrix of case and in interest of justice.”

¶24

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner seeks to challenge the charge-sheet with respect to FIR No.185/2022 for the offences under section 420 of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) registered at respondent No. 2 Police Station at the instance of respondent No. 3 herein and in consequence, the order dated 08.08.2023 for taking cognizance by learned JMFC against petitioner in criminal case bearing Case No. 11787/2023 on the ground that the allegations leveled against the present petitioner with malice motive and concealing the fact that in respect of the same facts, another FIR bearing Crime No. 58/2021 was filed by the same complainant though the offences were under different sections but

¶25

3 / 5

¶26

allegations are same and in the said earlier case, the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur in Criminal Case No. 12443/2021 was pleased to acquit the petitioner on the ground of compromise entered into between parties under Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C and it was specially stated by the respondent No. 3 that no monetary transactions till date are pending amongst the parties.

¶27

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that earlier, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner on a single allegation by the private respondent, which ended into a compromise before the Lok Adalat and a copy of the same has been annexed in page No.120 of the petition. It is also submitted that the petitioner have also lodged and FIR against the complainant, which was also compromised. A copy of the same is annexed in page No.126 of the petitioner. Further, it is submitted that on similar allegation, the present FIR has been lodged against the petitioner and later states that the earlier FIR has ended into a compromise and the present proceeding be accordingly quashed.

¶28

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and 2 / 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

¶29

4 / 5

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

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,

¶33

5 / 5

¶34

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 and a pointed query being raised to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to what is the status of the trial, he submits that the matter is fixed for the framing of the charges tomorrow. Hence, no good ground has been raised to interfere in the matter and quash the FIR at this stage when the trial has progressed substantially.

¶36

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.

¶37

Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha ) Judge Chief Justice

¶38

Manpreet

Chandrakant Sinha v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrakant Sinha 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

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

Kuldeep Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh