Petition under Section 482 CrPC sought quashing of an FIR alleging assault arising from a land dispute. The court found the FIR prima facie disclosed a cognizable offence, mediation had failed, and declined to exercise inherent powers, dismissing the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 375 of 2024
Mukesh Kumar Dansena @ Mukesh Jaiswal S/o Mahesh Ram Dansena Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Kumarta, P.S. Kapu, District Raigarh, C.G.
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondents
(Cause title has taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner Mr.Vikas Pandey, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2/State Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.3 None present
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
11.06.2024
1. Heard Mr.Vikas Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also
2
respondents No.1 and 2.
2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 CrPC with the following prayer:-
“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.158/2023, P.S. - Kapu, Distt.Raigarh (CG) U/S 294, 323, 427 & 506 of I.P.C. in the interest of justice.”
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.11.2023 the complainant namely Aarti Jaiswal lodged FIR against the petitioner stating that when the petitioner called her on mobile phone and she did not attend his call, he assaulted her by stick, due to which she received injury on hands and elbow. Thereafter, on 28.11.2023 the petitioner has sent a registered letter to respondent No.1 stating that the FIR which has been lodged by the complainant against him, proper investigation and proper enquiry be made and submit the closure report immediately. Thereafter, wife of the petitioner also sent a registered letter on 27.12.2023 to respondent No.1 stating that the complainant along with her family member also tortured her and her husband by calling several times regarding the land dispute and till date police has not done fair investigation as well as fair enquiry against the FIR which has been lodged by the complainant against the petitioner.
3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that lodging continuous FIR at same police station i.e. Kapu District Raigarh against the petitioner by the complainant and her family members regarding the land dispute due to which the petitioner is getting disturbed and is also suffering mental torture. He further submits that the respondent authorities without proper enquiry and investigation lodged the FIR, due to which the petitioner is facing severe mental problem. He also submits that respondent No.1 till date has not taken any action regarding letter of the petitioner and his wife which have been received in the office of respondent No.1, which shows malafide intention against the petitioner. Further, due to the land dispute, the false complaint has been lodged by the complainant only to harass the petitioner. As such, the present petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the petition.
7. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others 1 laid down the principles of law relating to the exercise of inherent powers under Article
1 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
4
226 of the Constitution of India to quash the first information report and it has been held that such power can be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In paragraph 102 of the report, The Supreme Court laid down the broad principles where such power under Article 226 of the Constitution/Section 482 of the CrPC should be exercised, which are as under: -
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are 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.
5
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or
6
where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
8. From perusal of the records, it appears that the the matter was referred before the Mediation Center for amicable settlement between the parties and as per report of the Mediation Center, mediation between the parties has failed.
9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the contents of the FIR which prima facie disclose a cognizable offence against the petitioner, we are of the considered view that it is not a case where inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC should be exercised for quashment of the FIR registered against the petitioner.
10. Accordingly, the petition being bereft of any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice
Bablu
7
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR in Crime No.158/2023 disclosing offences under Sections 294, 323, 427 and 506 IPC should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and othersRelied on¶7
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Mukesh Kumar Dansena @ Mukesh Jaiswal
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Superintendent Of Police, Raigarh
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Kapu, District Raigarh
Aarti Jaiswal
Ramesh Sinha
Sachin Singh Rajput
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
