Dismissed¶¶33

Pradeep Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC4 Nov 2024CRMP/523/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh HC Bilaspur; 2024:CGHC:42880; CRMP 523/2018; quash petition dismissed 05/11/2024; Criminal Case 352/2016 State of CG v. Ramprasad & Ors; FIR 337/1999 P.S. Kusmunda; charge-sheet Annexure P-1; SECL Gevra Project land acquisition employment; land-record mutation allegation; complainant Parvati Bai; Section 482 Cr.P.C quashing test; Section 239 Cr.P.C discharge rejected 02/01/2018; Criminal Revision 03/2018 dismissed 27/02/2018 Additional Sessions Judge Katghora; interim order 28/03/2018 vacated; Korba; Katghora; Ramesh Sinha Chief Justice; Bibhu Datta Guru Judge.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted to the petitioner; the interim order granted earlier vide order dated 28/03/2018 stands vacated. ¶¶33

Pradeep Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted to the petitioner; the interim order granted earlier vide order dated 28/03/2018 stands vacated.

¶¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should quash Criminal Case No. 352/2016 (State of CG v. Ramprasad & Ors) pending in the Court of JMFC, Katghora and further quash the charge-sheet filed in respect of FIR No. 337/99 of P.S. Kusmunda against petitioner Pradeep Sharma. +1 more

¶¶21

Court's answer

The Court in the ordinary course should not invoke its powers to quash criminal proceedings except in rare and compelling circumstances.

¶¶29

Ratio / Principle

Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C is permissible only if the complaint does not disclose any offence or the same is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive; the Court held that in the present case these circumstances do not come out.

¶¶29

Key takeaways

Since the petitioner's discharge application under Section 239 Cr.P.C was rejected on 02/01/2018 and Criminal Revision No. 03/2018 was rejected on 27/02/2018, the Court did not find any good ground to interfere with the case at this stage.ratio¶¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR - CRMP No. 523 of 2018, decided 05/11/2024 (Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice, with Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge) - DISMISSED. Petitioner Pradeep Sharma sought quashing of Criminal Case No. 352/2016 (State of CG v. Ramprasad & Ors) pending before JMFC, Katghora and the charge-sheet filed in respect of FIR No. 337/99 of P.S. Kusmunda; the prosecution alleged co-accused Ramprasad and Arun Kumar had the petitioner's father mutated in land records, on whose basis the petitioner obtained SECL employment. Held: the Court should not ordinarily invoke its powers to quash except in rare and compelling circumstances, and quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C is permissible only if the complaint discloses no offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive - which the Court said does not come out here; further, since the petitioner's Section 239 Cr.P.C discharge application was rejected on 02/01/2018 and Criminal Revision No. 03/2018 was rejected on 27/02/2018 (Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora), no good ground existed to interfere. Interim order dated 28/03/2018 vacated.

1 / 4

2024:CGHC:42880

NAFR

Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL JHA JHA Date:2024.11.06 10:56:25 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRMP No. 523 of 2018

¶7

1 - Pradeep Sharma S/o Kashi Prasad Sharma Aged About 43 Years R/o Deepka Colony, Qr. No. Md/907, Tehsil Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶11

Respondents

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr. Siddharth Das, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, PL

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board

¶15

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 05/11/2024

¶16

Heard Mr. Siddharth Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner and

¶17

Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer for the State.

¶18

The instant CRMP has been filed by the petitioner for following

¶19

2 / 4

¶20

prayer:-

¶21

“It is therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Criminal Case No. 352/2016 State of CG v. Ramprasad & Ors pending in the Court of JMFC, Katghora and further quash the charge-sheet (Annexure P-1) filed in respect of FIR No. 337/99 of P.S. Kusmunda.”

¶22

Facts of the case in the nutshell are that Complainant Parvati Bai (henceforth ‘the Complainant’) lodged a written complaint on 30/08/1999 alleging therein that her husband was having 0.05 acre land vide Khasara No. 440/4 and 441/4. The said land was acquired by SECL, Gevra Poject and compensation was paid against the said acquisition. She alleged that one member of her family was entitled for employment in lieu of acquisition of land and for the same, when she tried to get his son employed, she came to know that some one else has already got job. Therefore, she lodged the present FIR.

¶23

Further case of the prosecution is that co-accused Ramprasad and Arun Kumar get the name of father of petitioner mutated in the land record and on the basis of said mutation, petitioner got employment in the SECL.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated as there is no evidence against the petitioner at all. The petitioner was appointed in job by the duly appointed Selection Committee after complete verification of

¶25

3 / 4

¶26

record. He submits that the police has not at all investigated whether at the time of mutation petitioner played any role or not. He further submits that the petitioner had moved an application under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C for discharge from the charges before the learned Trial Court, but the same was rejected. Subsequently, a revision was also preferred by him bearing Criminal Revision No. 03/2018, which has also been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora vide order dated 27/02/2018. Hence, this CRMP.

¶27

Learned counsel for the State submits that the Complaint has been made in the year 1999 and the application of the petitioner filed under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C has already been rejected, therefore, this CRMP may also be dismissed.

¶28

We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶29

It is settled propositions that the Court in ordinary course should not invoke its powers to quash such proceedings except in rare and compelling circumstances. It is also well settled propositions that quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C is permissible only if the complaint does not disclose any offence or the same is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive, which in the present case does not come out.

¶30

From perusal of the record, it transpires that the complaint was made by the Complainant in the year 1999 against the petitioner and co-accused persons; the petitioner filed application under

¶31

4 / 4

¶32

Section 239 of the Cr.P.C for his discharge from the charges which has been rejected on 02/01/2018; subsequently, a criminal revision No. 03/2018 preferred by him was also rejected on 27/02/2018, therefore, at this stage, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the case.

¶33

Consequently, the CRMP is dismissed.

¶34

The interim order granted earlier vide order dated 28/03/2018 stands vacated.

¶35

Sd/Sd/(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶36

Shoaib/Rahul

Pradeep Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohit Kumar Pandey Vs Board Of Secondary Education

D. S. Rao Vs Nokhelal

Dilip Upadhayay Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dilraj Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Paddam Raju Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Devendra Usendi Vs State of Chhattisgarh