Dismissed¶33

Balram Kashyap v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC23 Jun 2024CRMP/471/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of charge; Section 482 CrPC inherent powers; Article 226; Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC; forged ration card; fraudulent withdrawal of land-acquisition compensation Rs.4,03,166/-; Khasra No.176/2; Sonarin Bai; Khedia Bai; Bhajan Lal quashing guidelines; Neharika Infrastructure; prima facie cognizable offence; charges framed, trial in progress; conclude trial within 6 months; JMFC Raipur Criminal Case No.16201/2014; Balram Kashyap; Moti Lal @ Panna Lal @ Mali Lal Sahu; Police Station Titibandha FIR; High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur; CRMP No. 471 of 2020.

What did the court decide?

The jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or chargesheet is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases; courts should not ordinarily interfere with investigations of cognizable offences. ¶30

Balram Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge framed against the petitioner under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Criminal Case No.16201/2014 should be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, given the absence of specific allegations against the petitioner in the FIR.

¶20

Court's answer

¶30

Ratio / Principle

Where the allegations in the FIR or complaint, even 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 charge-sheet may be quashed under Article 226 or Section 482 CrPC; this exception did not assist the petitioner here.

¶30

Key takeaways

On perusal of the FIR, a prima facie cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner; the charges stand framed and the defence put forth by the petitioner can be looked into at the stage of trial.ratio¶29
This is not a fit case to quash the charge framed against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC; the petition is dismissed, with an expression of hope and trust that the trial court concludes the trial within 6 months if there is no other legal impediment.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh (CRMP No. 471 of 2020, decided 24.06.2024, per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice, with Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge) dismissed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the charge framed against the petitioner Balram Kashyap for offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Criminal Case No.16201/2014. The FIR originated from a complaint by respondent No.2 Moti Lal alleging that the petitioner and others conspired, created a forged ration card and other documents of Late Khedia Bai, and on 18.10.2006 fraudulently withdrew the entire compensation award of Rs.4,03,166/- for Khasra No.176/2 (acquired 1982-83; award dated 20.10.1986 in the name of Sonarin Bai, also passed in favour of Khedia Bai, who died on 19.01.2002). The Court, relying on State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 605 and Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) SCC OnLine SC 315, reiterated that quashing power under Article 226 / Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly and only where allegations, taken at face value, disclose no offence; found a prima facie cognizable offence made out against the petitioner; noted charges were framed and trial in progress, with the defence open at trial; and expressed hope and trust that the trial court would conclude the trial within six months absent legal impediment.

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRMP No. 471 of 2020

¶5

Balram Kashyap S/o Late J. L. Kashyap Aged About 44 Years R/o Lakhenagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Amanaka, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

2 - Moti Lal @ Panna Lal @ Mali Lal Sahu S/o Late Murha Ram Sahu R/o Heerapur, Police Station Amanaka, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

---- Respondents

¶11

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶12

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For the petitioner : Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Navin Shukla, Advocate For respondent No.1/State : Mr. Amit Buxy, Panel Lawyer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶13

Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶14

Hon'ble Mr. Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶17

24.06.2024

¶18

1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

¶19

¶20

Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.), the petitioner seeks quashing of charge framed against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of Indian Penal Code (Annexure P-1) by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Criminal Case No.16201/2014 in the interest of justice.

¶21

The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner is a resident of Purani Basti, Lakhe Nagar Road, Raipur and respondent No.2 is also a resident of Raipur. His Aunt namely Khediya Bai was having a land bearing Khasra No.176/2 total area 0.178 hectare which was purchased by her from one Sonarin Bai on 27.05.1993 by executing a registered sale deed. The said land was acquired earlier in the year 1982-83. It is very strange that at that time, the owner of the land was Smt. Sonarin Bai and the compensation award was passed in the name of Sonarin Bai on 20.10.1986 by the State Government but the same award amount of Rs.4,03,166/- has been passed in favour of Khedia Bai also. But before receiving the award amount on 19.01.2002, she died leaving behind respondent No.2 as her legal heir. That, one complaint made by respondent No.2 before the Police Station Titibandha alleging that the petitioner along with the other persons namely Lakhan Lal Sahu, Devendra Sahu, Bhagwat Yadav, Latelu Ram Manikpuri and others made a conspiracy and created the forged ration card as well as other documents of Late Khedia Bai and thereafter on 18.10.2006 standing some other person in place of Khedia Bai and respondent No.2, fraudulently took the whole amount of compensation award which was

¶22

¶23

passed in favour of Khedia Bai, which was awarded in lieu of the land acquisition.

¶24

Ms. Fouzia Mirza, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that from bare perusal of FIR and other relevant documents, there is no any direct and indirect allegation made against the petitioner. She further submits that in the whole complaint or even in the FIR, the respondent No.2 has not mentioned that how the petitioner is involved in the said conspiracy and it is very important to mention here that at the time when the land bearing Khasra No.176/2 was acquired by the CG Housing Board in the year 1982-83, the owner of the land was Smt. Sonarin Bai and the compensation award was passed in the name of Sonarin Bai on 20.10.1986 and the name of Khedia Bai as well as Motilal was nowhere mentioned. Therefore, no case is made out to prosecute the petitioner under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC.

¶25

On the other hand, Mr. Amit Buxy, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent opposes this petition and submit that since the charges have been framed against the petitioner, and the perusal of the materials on record discloses commission of cognizable offence, no interference is warranted at this stage.

¶26

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

¶27

From perusal of the FIR and other relevant documents, we are not

¶28

¶29

persuaded with the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Perusal of FIR , it is evident that prima facie, a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner. Apart from this, the charges have also been framed against the petitioner and the defence put forth by the petitioner can be looked into at the stage of trial.

¶30

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 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C {See: State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 605 and Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others (2021) SCC OnLine SC 315}. Moreover, in the instant case charges have been framed against the petitioner and trial is in progress.

¶31

In view of the above, we do not find it a fit case to quash the charge framed against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of Indian Penal Code (Annexure P-1) by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Criminal Case No.16201/2014,

¶32

¶33

and as such, this petition is dismissed. However, we hope and trust that the learned trial Court would conclude the trial within a period of 6 months, if there is no other legal impediment.-

SdSd/-Sd/--Sd/-/-

Sd/-

Sd/-

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

¶38

Parul

Balram Kashyap v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balram Kashyap v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagirathi Nisad Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sumaykar Vs Kamleshwar

Himanshu Bhuarya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jitendra Chandravanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Naresh Kannoje Vs Smt. Punabai @ Puniya

Amit Anand Jha Vs State of Chhattisgarh