Ravindra Singh v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC19 Jun 2024WPCR/27/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR; false or retaliatory/vengeance FIR lodged after High Court order on illegal erection and Town and Country Planning norms violation; FIR No.0363 of 2023, Police Station Padmanabhpur, Durg; offences under sections 294, 323, 34, 506 Indian Penal Code; petitioner absent at occurrence, CCTV footage claim; investigation concluded, police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. to be filed within a week; writ petition disposed of; Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; W.P. (Cr) No.27 of 2024; decided 20.6.2024; Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice; Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Investigating Officer to file the police report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. before the competent Court within a week; writ petition disposed of with that direction (quashing prayer not acted upon). ¶¶32

Ravindra Singh Vs the State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

W.P. (Cr) No.27 of 2024

¶4

Ravindra Singh, son of Shri Late Shri S.P. Singh, aged about 56 years, resident of Shop No.357, Zonal Market, Sector 10, Bhilai Nagar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh working as Assistant Professor (Retd.) Mathematics and at present providing coaching for JEE and IIT competitive exams

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

versus

¶7

1. The State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

2. The Station House Officer, Police Station Durg Kotwali, District Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶9

3. The Superintendent of Police, Durg, District Durg

¶10

4. Pushpa Ramteke, wife of Shri Anil Ramteke, aged about 46 years, resident of Ward No.18, Gram Panchayat Hanod Padmanabhpur, Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶11

--- Respondents

¶12

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Petitioner : Shri Shivang Dubey, Advocate For State/Respondents 1 to 3 : Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate For Respondent 4 : Shri Sudhir Verma, Advocate

¶13

Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶16

20.6.2024

¶17

1. Heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

¶18

2. In the instant petition the Petitioner has prayed for the following

¶19

reliefs:

¶20

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court be kindly be pleased to issue a writ/order/direction to quash/set-aside quash criminal prosecution in FIR No.0363 of 2023 dated 09.12.2023 registered before Police Station Padmanabhpur, District–Durg Chhattisgarh for allegedly committing offence under section 294, 323, 34 and 506 of Indian

¶21

¶22

Penal Code (Annexure P/1).

¶23

10.2 Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court including award the cost of the petition.”

¶24

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the Petitioner had preferred a writ petition against the Complainant/Respondent 4 for violating norms of the Town and Country Planning while raising illegal erections. This Court vide order dated 28.11.2023 in Writ Appeal No.484 of 2023 had directed the Director, Town and Country Planning to decide the proceedings pending against the Complainant within a period of eight weeks. After passage of 11 days, i.e., on 9.12.2023, the Complainant/Respondent 4 lodged the present FIR against the Petitioner.

¶25

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the FIR in question has been lodged by the Complainant/Respondent 4 to take vengeance from the Petitioner. The Petitioner was not present at the time of alleged occurrence. CCTV footage and other evidence clearly establishes the same. The complaint is bogus. The Complainant seeks to punish the Petitioner by filing a false FIR. He prays for quashing of the FIR.

¶26

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the State/Respondents 1 to 3 states that the investigation has been concluded and a report has been prepared and the same is to be filed shortly.

¶27

6. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent 4/Complainant opposes the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner.

¶28

7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material

¶29

¶30

available with due care.

¶31

8. In view of the submission made by the Learned Counsel for the State that the investigation has been concluded and a report has been prepared and the same is to be filed shortly, the Investigating Officer is directed to file the said police report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. before the competent Court within a week from today.

¶32

9. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶33

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

¶34

Gopal

Ravindra Singh v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Singh v. the 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

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Lalita

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Soga Bai

Smt. Sogabai Vs Malikram Sahu

Ishwar Kamar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/s Manmath Nath Kundu and Sons Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial Tax and Anors

M/s Manmath Nath Kundu and Sons Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial Tax Anors