Dismissed

Jamuna Prasad Jaiswal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC20 Aug 2024CRMP/2647/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a Section 482 CrPC petition seeking quashment of charges and a lower order. Finding prima facie material and evidence sufficient, the court held no interference was warranted during the ongoing trial.

What the court decided

AI extract

Jamuna Prasad Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

2024:CGHC:31832

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRMP No. 2647 of 2019

¶6

Jamuna Prasad Jaiswal S/o Late Shri Radhe Shyam Jaiswal Aged About 65 Years R/o Village- Marwahi, P.S.- Marwahi, District- Bilaspur

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principle Secretary, Department Of Home (Jail), Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2. (Deleted) The District Magistrate As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 1712-2019.

¶11

3. (Deleted) Director General Of Police, Raipur As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 17-12-2019.

¶12

4. (Deleted) Inspector General Of Police, Bilaspur As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 17-12-2019.

¶13

5. (Deleted) Superintendent Of Police, Bilaspur As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 17-12-2019.

¶14

6. (Deleted) The Sub Divisional OfÏcer (Police) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 17-12-2019.

¶15

7. The Station House OfÏcer Station Incharge, Police Station- Marwahi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

8. Dr. Reshma Ansari D/o Ashraf Ansari Aged About 40 Years Caste Muslim, R/o Nayapara, Shankar Chowk, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)

¶17

----Respondents

¶18

----------------------------------	------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner	: Mr. Dhirendra Prasad Mishra, Advocate
For State	: Mr. T. Nand, Panel Lawyer.
For Respondents No. 8 ----------------------------------	: Mr. G.M. Hasan, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------

¶19

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Order on Board

¶21

21.08.2024

¶22

By way of instant Petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC, the Petitioner is seeking set aside of the impugned order dated 04.10.2019 in Criminal Revision No. 10/2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Pendra Road(C.G.) and is also seeking set aside of the order/charge framed in Criminal Case No. 10/2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Marwahi, whereby charges have been levelled against the petitioner.

¶23

Facts of the case are that, a complaint has been made by the respondent No. 8 Dr. Reshma Ansari against the petitioner on 25.09.2016 before the Police Station Marwahi alleging therein that her ancestral land is Khasra number 181 in which Jamuna Prasad is trying to take illegal possession. To protect her land, she has built a wall on one side and fencing on the other side and also put up a board with her name. Earlier, she has orally told to him, even though he broke the wall and remove the board. On 25.09.2016 when she came to her land, then Jamuna Prasad and other persons came and started threatening her, pushed her and made her fall. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, crime was registered against the petitioner under Sections 294, 506, 323 and 427 of the IPC by the Police Station Marwahi. Against the same, the petitioner has filed the revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 04.10.2019. Hence this petition.

¶24

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per final report filed by the Police Station Marwahi, all the prosecution witnesses are residents of Raipur which is around 300 Kms away from the so called incident place, but the police authorities have not made a single independent witness who resides near the incident place and was present at the fateful time.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on 21.02.2018, the petitioner submitted application under RTI Act before SHO Marwahi and the information on the application was given to the petitioner by the SHO Marwahi himself on 23.03.2018 and 27.03.2018. The petitioner had received the statements of independent witnesses recorded by the Police Authorities and they have been recorded by the Police Authority, however the Police has not enclosed the statements of independent witnesses with the charge-sheet. On perusal of all the statements of independent witnesses, there is no evidence against the petitioner that such fateful incident occur on that day between the petitioner and the complainant.

¶27

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for petition that from bare perusal of the entire material collected by the prosecution, the offences are not made out against the petitioner and prays for quashment /set aside of the order dated 04.10.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Pendra Road in Criminal Revision No. 10/2019 and also prays for quashment of order / charge framed in Criminal Case No. 10/2018

¶28

¶29

passed by the learned JMFC and to discharge the petitioner from the charges leveled against him.

¶30

On the other hand, Learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent No. 8 would submit that after due investigation the petitioner has been charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences and prima-facie material collected are sufÏcient to put the petitioner at trial. They would further submit that taking into consideration the material available on record, it cannot be held that no prima-facie case against the petitioner is made out. They would also submit that jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the CrPC is extremely limited as FIR and charge-sheet cannot be quashed particularly when there is sufÏcient evidence available on record to put the accused person to trial. He would rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as Hon'ble High Court in the matters of "State of Harayana Vs. Bhajan Lal" reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 and State of Orissa & Ors. Versus Ujjal Kumar Burdhan reproted in ( 2012) 4 SCC 547 and also Jeffrey J. Diermeier & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. reported in ( 2010) 6 SCC 243. In view of the abovementioned judgments, the instant petition under Section 482 may not be maintainable as no facts and grounds have been urged by the petitioner warranting any interference by this Court. The instant petition deserves to be dismissed being baseless and devoid of merits.

¶31

¶32

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶33

Section 482 of the CrPC provides as under:-

¶34

“ 482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court .—Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

¶35

Even though, the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., to interfere with criminal proceedings is wide, such power has to be exercised with circumspection, in exceptional cases. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C is not to be exercised for the asking.

¶36

On perusal of charge sheet, it appears that the Police has recorded the statements of Dr. Reshma Ansari, Mohammad Zakir, Tanvir Khan and Sheikh Abid and after due investigation, the petitioner has been chargesheeted for the aforesaid offences.

¶37

Considering the aforesaid facts and material collected on behalf of the prosecution and also considering the fact that learned trial Court has rightly made out an offence under Sections 294, 323, 506-II and 427 of the IPC against the petitioner on the basis of material produced before the Trial Court and considering the submission made by the learned counsel for respondents that the charges have been framed against the

¶38

¶39

petitioner and the prosecution has started recording of evidence of witnesses and the trial is in progress, I am not inclined to interfere the matter at this stage.

¶40

Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 of the CrPC is liable to be and is hereby dismissed .

¶41

This Court clarify that observations made in this order are prima facie and based on charge sheet and not the correctness of the allegations made in the charge-sheet, the trial Court is not to be influenced at all by findings/observations while deciding the case on merits.

¶42

A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action.

¶43

Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶46

Jyoti

Jamuna Prasad Jaiswal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Jamuna Prasad Jaiswal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Sanjeet Singh

Mukesh Kumar Dewangan Vs Narendra Kumar Jain

Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Vs Mr. Murli Laheja

M/s Deepak Tractor and Agriculture Vs Puran Lal Janswami

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Homesh Satnami