Allowed

Vimal Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Chhattisgarh HC1 May 2024CRMP/399/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A practising advocate was booked under Section 420 IPC for allegedly filing a civil suit without authority from respondents Nos.2 & 3; a later suit filed by the same respondents through the same advocate was compromised between the parties, and their compounding application was pending. Holding that continuation of proceedings after amicable resolution served no purpose, the High Court quashed Crime No.301/2016, the charge sheet and Criminal Case No.J-496/2016, with a caution to the petitioner to adhere to professional ethics.

What did the court decide?

Crime No.301/2016, charge sheet and criminal proceeding in Criminal Case No.J-496/2016 quashed, with caution to petitioner to adhere to professional ethics.

Vimal Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others — Quashing and FIR | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRMP No.399 of 2018

¶5

Vimal Yadav, S/o Latel Yadav, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Janakpur Road, Takhatpur, Tah. Takhatpur Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Smt. Nasimbano, D/o Late Usman Bhai, Aged About 48 Years W/o Mohd. Dilawar Lokadia, R/o House No.11, Mahalaxmi Enclave, Sihawa Road, Dhamtari Tahsil and District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh

¶10

Smt. Aashma Bano D/o Late Usman Bhai aged about 46 years W/o Mohd. Yakub Sorthiya, R/o Alib Building, Saygara Colony, Samnath Road, Verawal Gujrat, Gujarat

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner For Respondent-State For Respondent Nos.2 & 3

¶13

Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate Mr. Hariom Rai, PL Mr. Vaibhav Goverdhan, Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

¶15

Judgment on Board

¶16

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 02.05.2024

¶17

Heard Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer for the State and Mr. Vaibhav Goverdhan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 & 3.

¶18

¶19

The petitioner has preferred the instant petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of Crime No.301/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC dated 04.10.2016, charge sheet as well as criminal proceeding pending before the JMFC, Takhatpur in Criminal Case No.J-496/2016 registered against the petitioner.

¶20

Brief facts of the case are that the the petitioner was the practising advocate and he had filed a civil suit bearing Civil Suit No.59-A/2016 along with application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC before the learned Civil Judge Class-II, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur on behalf of respondent Nos.2 & 3, who did not give any power to the petitioner to file any suit or application on their behalf, upon which a memo was issued by the said Court on 03.10.2016 (Annexure-P/1) to register an offence against the petitioner for committing forgery with the plaintiffs/respondent Nos.2 & 3, upon which an an offence under Section 420 of IPC bearing Crime No.301/2016 was registered against the petitioner and thereafter the charge sheet was filed before the JMFC, Takhatpur. During the criminal trial, the respondent Nos.2 & 3 filed an application under Section 320 (2) and 320 (1) (8) of CrPC seeking permission to compound the offence with the petitioner, which was rejected vide order dated 07.11.2017. Thereafter another civil suit was filed on behalf of the said respondent Nos.2 & 3 bearing Civil Suit No.J-61-A/2016 by the same counsel, which has been compromised between the parties vide

¶21

¶22

31.07.2017. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of the FIR as well as criminal case registered against him.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not got any wrongful gain and has not caused any wrongful loss to the respondent Nos.2 & 3 while filing power on their behalf, as they had given their consent to file power on their behalf and even affidavit signed by one of the private respondent was provided to the petitioner. The respondent Nos.2 & 3 have also filed application under Section 320 (2) of CrPC for compounding the offence between the petitioner and the respondent Nos.2 & 3, but the said application was rejected by the learned Trial Court. He further submits that another civil suit was filed on behalf of the said respondent Nos.2 & 3 by the same counsel i.e. the petitioner, which has been compromised between the parties vide 31.07.2017, as such no case is made out against the petitioner. Therefore, the FIR as well as criminal registered against the petitioner may kindly be quashed.

¶24

Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 & 3 submits that though earlier based on the complaint of the respondent Nos.2 & 3, an FIR was directed to be registered by the learned Trial Court against the petitioner, but subsequently compromise application was filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 & 3 to compound the offence with the petitioner. It is also admitted that the second civil suit was also filed by the respondent Nos.2 & 3 appointing the

¶25

¶26

same counsel/petitioner, as such the parties have amicably resolved their dispute.

¶27

Learned State counsel submits that based on the direction of the learned Trial Court, an offence was registered against the petitioner and after investigation, the charge sheet was submitted before the concerned Court. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed at this stage.

¶28

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

¶29

The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet 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 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

¶30

In the well celebrated judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal , the Apex Court held that those guidelines should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. Guidelines are as follows:

¶31

¶32

“(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 to do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

¶33

(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 156(2) of the Code.

¶34

(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.

¶35

(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.

¶36

(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 every reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶37

(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.

¶38

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or 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."

¶39

In case of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill ; reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi ; reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd.

¶40

¶41

v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors; reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Apex Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. However, it was held that if the allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed.

¶42

In the matter of Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Apex Court 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, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex 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., only has to consider whether or not the allegations of F.I.R. disclose the

¶43

¶44

commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit.

¶45

Therefore, it is very well settled that criminal proceedings maliciously instituted with ulterior motives can be quashed by this Court while exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶46

In the present case, it is unequivocal from the record that the petitioner, who was the practising advocate had filed a civil suit along with application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC before the Trial Court on behalf of respondent Nos.2 & 3, who did not give any power to the petitioner to file any suit or application on their behalf, upon which a memo was issued by the said Court on 03.10.2016 (Annexure-P/1) to register an offence against the petitioner for committing forgery with the plaintiffs/respondent Nos.2 & 3, thereafter an an offence under Section 420 of IPC was registered against the petitioner and thereafter the charge sheet was filed before the concerned Magistrate. During the criminal trial, the respondent Nos.2 & 3 filed an application under Section 320 (2) and 320 (1) (8) of CrPC seeking permission to compound the offence with the petitioner, but the same was rejected. Thereafter another civil suit was filed on behalf of the said respondent Nos.2 & 3, which has been compromised between the parties vide 31.07.2017. Vide order dated 27.02.2018 passed by this Court, the proceedings of the criminal case in question pending before the JMFC, Takhatpur were directed to be stayed.

¶47

¶48

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, Crime No.301/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC dated 04.10.2016, charge sheet as well as criminal proceeding pending before the JMFC, Takhatpur in Criminal Case No.J496/2016 registered against the petitioner are hereby quashed with a cautioning to the petitioner to adhere to the professional ethics.

¶49

The petition stands allowed.

¶50

Sd/Sd/( Rajani Dubey ) ( Ramesh Sinha ) Judge Chief Justice

¶51

Nirala

Vimal Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimal Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

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

Anuj Kumar Agrawal and Another Vs State

Dr. Prabhat Panigrahi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manpreet Kaur Gandhi Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Priyanka Jaiswal Vs Union of India

Mr. Komaraiah Malka Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manoj Shrivastava Vs State of Chhattisgarh