Satish Kumar Choubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRMP No. 246 of 2020

¶5

Diwaker Choubey S/o Shri Satish Choubey Aged About 31 Years Resident Of Ganga Nagar, Phase-Ii, Mangla, Police Station Civil Lines, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Accused), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through, Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Revenue And Civil District- Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Station House Officer Police Station- Mahila Thana, Bilaspur, DistrictBilaspur Chhattisgarh (Prosecution), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Smriti Choubey W/o Shri Diwaker Choubey Aged About 31 Years Resident Of Village- Kheda, Post- Gidha, Mungeli, Tehsil And District- Mungeli Chhattisgarh (Complainant), District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

with

¶13

CRMP No. 255 of 2020

¶14

Satish Kumar Choubey S/o Late Shri Bhouram Choubey Aged About 60 Years Resident Of Ganga Nagar, Sector-Ii, Mangla, Police Station- Civil Lines, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Accused), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

Smt. Kusum Choubey W/o Shri Satish Kumar Choubey Aged About 55 Years Resident Of Ganga Nagar, Sector-Ii, Mangla, Police Station- Civil Lines, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶16

---- Petitioners

¶17

Versus

¶18

State Of Chhattisgarh Through, Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Revenue And Civil District- Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶19

Station House Officer Police Station- Mahila Thana, Bilaspur, DistrictBilaspur Chhattisgarh (Prosecution), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶20

Smriti Choubey W/o Shri Diwaker Aged About 33 Years Resident Of Village- Kheda, Post- Gidha, Mungeli, Tehsil And District- Mungeli Chhattisgarh (Complainant), District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶21

2

¶22

• ---- Respondents

¶23

(Cause Title taken from Case Information System)

¶24

Mr. Amit Kumar and Ms. Jaya Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶25

Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

¶26

Mr. K. K. Khatri & Mr. Vijay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.

¶27

Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge

¶28

Order on Board

¶29

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13.06.2024

¶30

1. Since both the petitions arise out of same crime number and same Criminal Case number, they are clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶31

2. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar and Ms. Jaya Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. K. K. Khatri & Mr. Vijay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.

¶32

3. The present petitions have been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:-

¶33

3

¶34

“It is therefore, prayed that the petition may kindly be allowed and the FIR No. 34/2019 (Annexure P-1), registered by Police Station Mahila Thana, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, CG and its consequential prosecution, for the offences punishable Under Sections 498-A, 406 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, may kindly be quashed, in respect to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.”

¶35

4. Facts of the case in brief is that the FIR under Sections 498-A / 34 of IPC was lodged against the petitioners namely Diwaker Choubey (husband), Satish Choubey (father-in-law) and Kusum Choubey (mother-in-law) on 10.09.2019 by the respondent No. 3 (Smriti Choubey). As per the allegations of the FIR respondent No. 3 / Smt. Smriti Choubey was subjected to harassment by the aforesaid petitioners on account of dowry. Thereafter, the investigation was set on motion and charge-sheet was filed.

¶36

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that on bare perusal of the FIR on its face value does not constitute any offences under Sections 498-A / 34 of IPC. Continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of law. It is further contended that the FIR was filed in order to harass the petitioners and they have not committed any offence.

¶37

6. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that

¶38

4

¶39

after filing of the charge-sheet, the charges against the petitioners framed and the statement of the wife/ complainant as respondent No. 3 / Smriti Choubey has already been recorded. He further submits that perusal of the FIR and the charge-sheet clearly indicates that the offence alleged has been made out against the petitioners.

¶40

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

¶41

8. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complainant, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Court 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 CrPC.

¶42

9. 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 statement of once the charges have been framed, the petitioner have to fact the trial.

¶43

5

¶44

10. In that view of the matter, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the present case, accordingly, the instant petitions under Section 482 of the CrPC are dismissed.

¶45

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

¶46

Pawan

Satish Kumar Choubey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Kumar Choubey 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

Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Sukhram

Chief Executive Officer Vs State of Chhattisgarh

In the Matter of Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vikas Tamrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Diwaker Choubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rakesh Bansal Vs Moti Lal