Kamlesh Kumar Tandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

Kamlesh Kumar Tandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the FIR was not granted; the petition stands disposed of with the observation and direction that the petitioner may place the compromise and relevant materials before the concerned Investigating Officer, who shall verify the same, conclude the investigation and submit a police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., if any, before the competent Court within six weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay in payment of process fee (IA No. 2) should be condoned. +1 more

Court's answer

The delay in payment of process fee (IA No. 2) is condoned and the Court proceeds to hear the matter finally.

Ratio / Principle

The petition is disposed of without quashing the FIR: since the matter is still under investigation despite the alleged compromise, the petitioner is at liberty to place the compromise and relevant materials before the concerned Investigating Officer, who shall verify the same, conclude the investigation and submit a police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., if any, before the competent Court in accordance with law within six weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR – Section 482 CrPC – Petition by accused to quash FIR Crime No. 0110/2019 dated 28.02.2019, P.S. Civil Lines, Raipur, for offences under Sections 420, 467 and 468 IPC, on the ground of a compromise with the complainant (respondent No. 2) – Investigation still pending – High Court (Ramesh Sinha, CJ and Bibhu Datta Guru, J) did not quash the FIR; disposed of the petition, holding the petitioner at liberty to place the compromise and relevant materials before the concerned Investigating Officer, who was directed to verify the same, conclude the investigation and submit a police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., if any, before the competent Court in accordance with law within six weeks from receipt of a copy of the order – Delay in payment of process fee (IA No. 2) condoned.

1

2024:CGHC:42638-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRMP No. 617 of 2024

Kamlesh Kumar Tandey S/o Shri Brij Lal Tandey, Aged About 42 Years Resident Of Main Road, Karan Nagar, New Changorabhatha, Raipur, DistrictRaipur (C.G.)

... Petitioner

versus

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Civil Lines Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

2 - Jyoti Sunani W/o Raj Kumar Sunani, Aged About 50 Years Resident Of House No. 1535/1537, Street No. 15, Sector-3, Professor Colony, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.)

... Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Raghavendra Pradhan, Advocate. For Respondent No. : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer. 1/State

Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

04/11/2024

By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR bearing Crime No.

2

0110/2019 dated 28.02.2019 registered at Police Station, Civil Lines, Raipur, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code.

Today, the matter is listed for hearing on IA No. 2 i.e. application for condonation of delay in payment of process fee. For the reasons stated therein, the delay is condoned and we proceed to hear the matter finally.

Facts of the case, in brief, as projected by the petitioner is that on 28.02.2019, a complaint was filed against the petitioner by the respondent No. 2 stating that the petitioner had shown a land belonging to one Sarita Singh, which was purchased by the complainant by way of registered sale deed. Later, the complainant came to know that the land was not recorded in the revenue records in the name of Sarita Singh and as such, she was defrauded. The petitioner was arrested and thereafter, he was released on bail vide order dated 16.04.2019 passed in M.Cr.C.No. 2356/2019.

At the outset, Mr. Raghavendra Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter has been compromised between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2, the FIR in question may be quashed. The petitioner neither committed nor participated in any such act which may amount to cheating.

On the other hand, Mr. Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 submits that the matter is still under investigation.

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

Considering the fact that as per the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter has been compromised between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2, but the matter is still under

3

investigation, the petitioner is at liberty to bring the said fact and place the relevant materials to the notice of the concerned Investigating OfÏcer and in turn, the Investigating OfÏcer shall verify the same and conclude the investigation and submit a police report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C., if any, before the competent Court in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this petition stands

disposed of .

Sd/(Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE

Sd/(Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE

Amit

Digitally
signed by
AMIT AMITKUMAR
KUMAR DUBEY
DUBEY Date:2024.11.05
11:33:48
+0530