Disposed

Shobha Ram Sinha v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC22 Oct 2024CRMP/625/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Investigating Officer to conclude the pending investigation regarding the petitioner, who was included in the charge-sheet but not the FIR, within six weeks and submit a police report under Section 173(2) CrPC. The petition was disposed of with this direction.

What did the court decide?

Directed IO to conclude investigation and submit police report under Section 173(2) CrPC within six weeks.

Shobha Ram Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Quashing and FIR | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

2024:CGHC:41848-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRMP No. 625 of 2022

¶6

Shobha Ram Sinha S/o Shri Ramnath Sahu Aged About 56 Years R/o Village- Bhitidih, P.S. And Tehsil Pithora, District- Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, P.S. Pithora, DistrictMahasamund (C.G.)

¶10

2 - Kiran Sinha D/o Late Shri Bholanath Sinha Aged About 58 Years R/o Swami Vivekanand Ward, Satti Bazaar, Kasar Gali, Raipur, DistrictRaipur (C.G.)

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate. For Respondents-State : Mr. Swajeet Ubeja, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Lokesh Kumar Sahu, Advocate.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶16

23.10.2024

¶17

In the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief:-

¶18

“ It is, therefore, prayed that th epetition maykindly be allowed and the FIR No.304/2021 and its consequential

¶19

¶20

proceeding annexure P-1, for the offence punishbable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 419, 34, 120-B of the IPC, only in respect to the petitioner, may kindly be quashed, in the interest of justice.”

¶21

Facts of the case, in brief, is that land bearing Khasra No. 88, Rakba 1.25 Hectare, Situated at Village- Patparpali, Tehsil Pithora, District- Mahasamund was Jointly owned by Co-accused Pankaj Sinha & Kiran Sinha (Complainant/respondent No. 2 herein). On 23/12/2019, a registered sale-deed was executed by Co-accused Pankaj Sinha with the help of Co-accused Nandita Jamulkar, impersonating Nandita Jamulkar as Kiran Sinha as seller and have alienated/sold the above land to the purchaser Neelam Sinha (Coaccused) and the said registered sale-deed was witnessed by 2 accused persons namely Chudamani Yadav & Tilak Ram Sahu. The complainant has suffered loss on account of above incident, as the above Joint owned land is transferred. Thereafter, on 15/11/2021, FIR was registered against the accused persons namely Pankaj Sinha, Nandita Jamulkar, Neelam Sinha, Chudamani Yadav & Tilak Ram Sahu. The present petitioner is the father-in-law of co-accused Neelam Sinha.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities have taken illegal actin against the petitioner by mentioning the name of the petitioner in the charge-sheet, though his name is not registered in the FIR. He submits that the petitioner is neither the seller nor the purchaser or its witnesses to the sale-deed. He further submits that

¶23

¶24

the entire case is false and there is no evidence against the petitioner in the entire F.I.R. (Annexure P-1). He submits that though the charge-sheet has been filed against the co-accused persons but as per the final report which has been annexed, the investigation with respect to the petitioner is still pending and no supplementary charge sheet has been submitted till 2022. It is stated that there appears to be only vague averments has been recorded in statement under 161 of Cr.P.C. that the petitioner had got the complainant impersonated for execution of the sale deed.

¶25

Learned counsel for the State and counsel for the respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against the co-accused persons alleging that the with the help of co-accused Nandita Jamulkar, impersonating nandita Jamulkar as Kiran Singha as seller and have sold the land to the purchaser Neelam Sinha, because of which, the complainant suffered a huge loss on account of above incident. The present petitioner is the father-in-law of co-accused Neelam Sinha.

¶26

We have heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and prayer made in the petition.

¶27

In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, and considering the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and investigation with respect to the petitioner is still pending, the Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation within a period of six weeks and submit a police report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. before the competent Court in accordance

¶28

¶29

with law.

¶30

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the present petition is

¶31

disposed of .

¶32

SD/SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶33

Amardeep

Shobha Ram Sinha v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shobha Ram Sinha v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Guru Harkishan Hotel and Resorts India, Raipur, C.G Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramkeshwar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dubey Travels Throght Shri Bhavesh Dubey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Vikas Pal Sandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanil Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh