Dismissed

Jairam Gadhewal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC8 Sept 2024CRMP/2433/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision petition seeking quashing of a charge-sheet in a dowry harassment case. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that since trial had already commenced after framing of charges, quashing was not a fit case under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

The charge-sheet and consequential criminal proceedings are not quashed; the trial is to be concluded expeditiously.

Jairam Gadhewal Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 6

2024:CGHC:34920-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRMP No. 2433 of 2024

¶6

1. Jairam Gadhewal S/o Shri Santram Gadhewal Aged About 35 Years R/o Chardabripara Village Kosmanda District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.)

¶7

2. Santram Gadhewal S/o Late Sadhuram Gadhewal Aged About 65 Years R/o Chardabripara Village Kosmanda District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.)

¶8

3. Ramla Gadhewal W/o Shri Santram Aged About 62 Years R/o Chardabripara Village Kosmanda District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.)

¶9

4. Triveni Gadhewal D/o Shri Santram Gadhewal Aged About 32 Years R/o Narayan Niwas, Dayalband, Bilspaur District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶10

... Petitioners

¶11

versus

¶12

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station Housee OfÏcer Police Station Champa District - Janjgir Champa (C.G.)

¶13

2. Shanti Gadhewal W/o Jairam Gadhewal Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Kosmanda Chardabripara District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Present Address - Village Mahant Police Station Nawagarh District - Janjgir- Champa (C.G.)

¶14

---- Respondent

¶15

For Petitioners For Respondent/State

¶16

: Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate. : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer.

¶17

Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN BRIJMOHAN MORLE MORLE Date: 2024.09.09 17:58:36 +0530

¶18

2 / 6

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶22

09.09 .2024

¶23

1. Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Sakib Ahmed, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent No. 1/State.

¶24

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

¶25

“ It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and further be pleased to quash the charge-sheet filed by Police Station Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 294, 506, 323, 325, 34 of Indian Penal Code, in the interest of justice. ”

¶26

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that that the marriage of the complainant/respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 23.05.2019 with the petitioner No. 1 according to social customs and rituals. The complainant/respondent No. 2 alleged that after the marriage, the petitioners started to assault for demanding motorcycle, gold ornaments and property as dowry. On 08.06.2023, the petitioner No. 1 assaulted a lot to the complainant for demand of dowry due to which her head was broken. Then, the petitioner No. 2 took to the complainant to Dr. Nayak Nursing Home, Champa for treatment, where the petitioners threatened for false statement about her injury. On the basis of the report lodged by

¶27

3 / 6

¶28

the complainant, the Police of Police Station Champa registered the FIR bearing Crime No. 319 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 294, 506, 323, 325, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). After entire investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Champa, District JanjgirChampa (C.G.).

¶29

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had filed CRMP No. 2467 of 2023 before this Court to quash the FIR bearing Crime No. 319 of 2023 registered by Police Station Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 08.08.2024 with liberty to the petitioners to take recourse to law, if aggrieved by the charge-sheet.

¶30

5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the marriage was solemnized between the petitioner No. 1 and the complainant/respondent No. 2 on 23.05.2019. Before the filing of the FIR, there is no allegation against the petitioners and family members. Suddenly, on 08.06.2023, the quarrel between the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2. As per the allegation, a hand of the complainant was broken, but there is no medical report submitted by the prosecution regarding the fracture of her hand particularly. There was a common quarrel between the husband and wife, thereafter, the complainant/respondent No. 2 left her matrimonial house.

¶31

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that there is a specific guideline issues regarding cooling period before lodging FIR, there was a matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife. There is obstruction

¶32

4 / 6

¶33

regarding direct lodging FIR against the husband and his family members and relatives. The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the guideline for 498A clarifies that the husband and relatives cannot be to post undergo trial. In absence of specific allegation of demand of dowry. Further importation 498A guideline were laid down by Allahabad High Court in Mukesh Bansal vs. State of U.P. , reported in 2022 SCC Online All 395 for the cooling period of two months against these cases. In this case, the complainant lodge a written complaint to Police Station Champa on 20.06.2023 and same day Police lodge the FIR against the petitioners without giving any opportunity and cooling period between the both the family members.

¶34

7. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner No. 4 is a daughter of the petitioners No. 2 and 3 and sister of the petitioner No. 1. She is an Advocate and practicing in the District Court Bilaspur and Bilaspur High Court since 2016. The petitioner No. 4 is not residing with the petitioners No. 1 to 3. There is no participation any matter regarding the family dispute. She is also participating the Civil Judge examination and attending the coaching class and residing in Narayan Niwas Dayalband, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in a rental house. The petitioner No. 4 has been residing in Bilaspur since 2016. The petitioner No. 4 occasionally goes to village Kosmanda to attend the family function only. He also contended that there is no allegation against the petitioner No. 4 regarding cruelty by the complainant. The omnibus statement has been given by the complainant. There is no specific allegation against the petitioner No. 4 regarding cruelty and harassment. Only false implication and false statement has been given by the

¶35

5 / 6

¶36

complainant. The investigation agency registered the name of the petitioner No. 4 in the FIR. The petitioner No. 4 is a meritorious student and participating in various competitive examination. Only due to revenge, the complainant obstructed to destroy her carrier and implicated her name in the complainant’s story for taken revenge of the family of the petitioners. Hence, the present petition may kindly be pleased to allow and quash the charge-sheet filed by the Police Station – Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) filed against the petitioners.

¶37

8. On the other, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the investigation has been done strictly in accordance with law and after completion of investigation the final report/charge-sheet has been filed and the learned trial Court already framed the charges against the petitioners.

¶38

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶39

10. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a chargesheet 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 528 of the BNSS or under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

¶40

6 / 6

¶41

11. In the present case, admittedly, after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner and the learned trial Court has taken cognizance of the evidences and upon finding prima facie evidence regarding commission of offences framed charges against the petitioners and after framing of charges the trial has been initiated against the petitioners.

¶42

12. In view of the above, we do not find it a fit case to quash the chargesheet filed by the Police Station Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 294, 506, 323, 325 and 34 of the IPC and the consequential criminal proceedings pending before the trial Court, as such, this petition is dismissed . However, we hope and trust that the learned trial Court would conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, as it is evident that petitioner No. 4 is a meritorious student and participating in various competitive examination.

¶43

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

¶44

Brijmohan

Jairam Gadhewal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jairam Gadhewal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishal Vishwakarma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Niharika Sinha Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Gomati Bai Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Kirti Sonwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Vikas Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ravishankar @ Bittu Vs State of Chhattisgarh