Smt. Yalamanchili Kamala Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Y. Raj Shekhar Krishna S/o Late Dr. Y.R. Krishna Aged About 46 Years R/o House No. 496, K.I.M.S. Hospital Campus, Magarpara Road, Police Station- Civil Lines, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶17

--- Petitioner(s)

¶18

2

¶19

CRMP No.133 of 2022 and other connected matters

¶20

Versus

¶21

1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶22

2 Director General Of Police Chhattisgarh, Police Headquarters, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶23

3 Inspector General Of Police Bilaspur Range, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶24

4 Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶25

5 Station House Officer Police Station- Civil Lines, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶26

6 Smt. Y. Kamala Wd/o Late Y. R. Krishna Aged About 72 Years R/o K.I.M.S. Hospital Campus, Magarpara, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶27

7 Dr. Y. Ravi Shekhar S/o Late Y.R. Krishna Aged About 36 Years R/o Flat No. C-2, Second Floor Sun Flower Tower, Narmada Nagar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶28

--- Respondent(s)

¶29

WPCR No. 276 of 2025

¶30

Dr. Y. Raj Shekhar Krishna S/o Late Dr. Y.R. Krishna Aged About 46 Years R/o House No.496, Kims Hospital Campus, Magarpara Road, Police Station- Civil Lines, Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶31

--- Petitioner(s)

¶32

3

¶33

CRMP No.133 of 2022 and other connected matters

¶34

Versus

¶35

1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.).

¶36

2 Director General Of Police Chhattisgarh, Police Headquarters, Raipur (C.G.).

¶37

3 Inspector General Of Police Bilaspur Range, Bilaspur, DistrictBilaspur (C.G.)

¶38

4 Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.).

¶39

5 Station House Officer Police Station- Civil Lines, Bilaspur, DistrictBilaspur (C.G.).

¶40

6 Smt. Y. Kamala Wd/o Late Y.R. Krishna Aged About 72 Years R/o Kims Hospital Campus, Magarpara, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶41

7 Dr. Y. Ravi Shekar S/o Late Y.R. Krishna Aged About 36 Years R/o Flat No. C-2, Second Floor Sun Flower Tower, Narmada Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶42

8 Dr. Sudha Ram D/o Raghuram Hariharan Aged About 38 Years R/o 205, Jaipal Tower, Phase 2, Agrasen Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶43

--- Respondent(s)

¶44

WPCR No. 293 of 2024

¶45

4

¶46

CRMP No.133 of 2022 and other connected matters

¶47

1 Smt. Yalamanchili Kamala Wd/o Late Y.R. Krishna Aged About 72 Years R/o Kims Hospital Campus, Magarpara, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶48

2 Yelamanchili Ravi Shekhar S/o Late Y.R. Krishna Aged About 36 Years R/o Flat No. C-2, Second Floor Sun Flower Tower, Narmada Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶49

--- Petitioner(s)

¶50

Versus

¶51

1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶52

2 Yalamanchili Raj Shekhar S/o Late Y.R. Krishna Aged About 42 Years R/o Magarpara, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶53

--- Respondent(s)

¶54

WPCR No. 302 of 2024

¶55

Dr. Sudha Ram D/o Shri Raghuram Hariharan Aged About 38 Years Permanent Address No. 865, 18th Main Road, Annanagar West, Near Godrej Showroom, Anna Nagar, Chennai, (Tamil Nadu) Presently Wroking At Kims Superspeciality Hospital Bilaspur (C.G.), Presently R/o 205, Jaipal Tower, Phase 2, Agrasen Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶56

--- Petitioner(s)

¶57

Versus

¶58

1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶59

2 Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶60

5

¶61

CRMP No.133 of 2022 and other connected matters

¶62

3 Station House Officer Civil Lines, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶63

4 Yalamanchili Raj Shekhar S/o Late Y.R. Krishna Aged About 42 Years R/o Magarpara, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶64

--- Respondent(s)

¶65

(Cause title taken from CIS)

¶66

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Hari Agrawal, Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachwahha, Ms, Anu Mishra on behalf of Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondent/State	: Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A.
For Respondent/ Dr.	: Mr. Raj Kamal Singh through V.C. along
Yalamachili Raj	with Mr. Suryapratap Yuddveer Singh,
Shekhar	Advocate

¶67

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

¶68

Order on Board

¶69

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶70

09/07/2025

¶71

Since all the matters involving family dispute and the facts and grounds are similar, they are being considered and decided by this common order.

¶72

CRMP No. 133 of 2022 & WPCR No. 293 of 2024

¶73

Heard Mr. Hari Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Dy. G.A. for the State and Mr. Raj Kamal Singh through V.C for respondent No. 2 along with Mr. Suryapratap Yuddveer Singh, Advocate.

¶74

6

¶75

CRMP No.133 of 2022 and other connected matters

¶76

By this petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC the petitioners have

¶77

prayed for the following relief(s) in CRMP No. 133 of 2022 :

¶78

“1. issue appropriate orders, exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and in exercise thereof call for the records, if necessary. 2. issue appropriate orders, quashing the FIR 1103/2021 dated 14.10.2021 against the petitioners, registered at PS Civil Lines, Bilaspur (C.G), for the offences 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in the interest of justice.

¶79

Issue further orders, quashing any other consequential orders or proceeding pursuant to the aforesaid FIR.

¶80

In WPCR No. 293 of 2024

¶81

10.1 he Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/direction/order to the respondent authorities and it may kindly be directed to produce entire records pertaining to the instant case.

¶82

10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/direction/order of appropriate nature quashing the impugned FIR No. 695/2024 dated 05.08.2024 (Annexure P/1) registered with PS:Civil Lines, Bilaspur (CG) since it is contrary to Article 20 of the Constitution of India.

¶83

10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/direction/order restraining the respondents from taking any action against the petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid FIR.

¶84

7

¶85

CRMP No.133 of 2022 and other connected matters

¶86

10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/direction/order, quashing any consequential action/proceeding pursuant to the impugned FIR.

¶87

10.5 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s) as it may deem fit.

¶88

If the prayer of both the petitions are kept in juxtapostition it would reveal that allegations in both the FIRs are almost identical, except for some cosmetic changes. More particularly, in the subsequent FIR there is also an allegation that the complainant has not been paid the salary/ remuneration for his service as a consultant.

¶89

The facts, in brief is that an FIR under section 420, 467, 468 and 471 r/w 34 of IPC was registered against the petitioners at the behest of complainant / Respondent No.02, who is the son of petitioer No.1 and brother of petitioner No.2, alleging that their father Dr. Y.R. Krishna had died intestate and therefore all the Class-1 heirs would inherit the property. However, it has further been alleged that the mutation has been affected on the basis of false and forged documents. The complainant also alleges that a false affidavit has been filed, wherein it has been stated that apart from the Petitioners, there are no legal heirs of Late Dr. Y.R. Krishna. Thus, the Respondent No.02 states in his complaint that he and his sister being other legal heirs, the affidavit submitted by the petitioers in the mutation proceeding is false, hence forgery

¶90

8

¶91

CRMP No.133 of 2022 and other connected matters

¶92

has been committed. In subsequent, FIR dated 5/8/2024 bearing Cr.No.695/2024 additional allegation has been made by the respondent No.2 that the petitioners are not paying salary to him though he has been appointed as Sr. Othopedic Surgeon Consultant on 23.10.2021 but tax has been deducted and credited to his PAN.

¶93

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that petitioner No. 1 is the widow of Late Dr. Y.R. Krishna and petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 2 are son of petitioner No. 1 and Late Dr. Y.R. Krishna. He further submits that late Dr. Y.R. Krishna during his lifetime started KIMS Super Specialty Hospital. He breath his last on 07.08.2020. He further submits that during his life time he had executed a declaration dated 10.04.2018, whereby he expelled the respondent No. 2 from his entire movable and immovable properties. He further submits that on the basis of same declaration mutation application was moved by petitioner No.1 and the Revenue Court after following the due process of law, and an order for mutation was passed on 18.01.2021 for mutation of subject lands in the name of the petitioners in the revenue records. He further contented that the respondent No. 2 though in knowledge of the declaration deed has lodged false and fabricated compliant against the petitioners stating they have mutated the subject lands in their names by playing fraud. He contended that in efforts to reconcile the family disputes

¶94

9

¶95

CRMP No.133 of 2022 and other connected matters

¶96

respondent No. 2 was appointed as Sr. Orthopedic Surgeon Consultant on 23.10.2021 but he misbehaved and thus was terminated from services on 17.06.2024, however respondent No. 2 was called upon by the management to settle his account for salary but he did not appear and further respondent No. 2 has already approached the NCLT, Cuttak (Orissa) for various claim with regard to the Hospital share holdings and professional remunerations from September 2022. He further submits that the FIR and the subsequent criminal proceedings are illegal in law in view of the express bar contained under the Section 195 Cr.PC. He placed his reliance in the cases of Inder Mohan Goswami V/s State of Uttaranchal (2007) 12 SCC, Narendra Kumar Shrivastava v/s State of Bihar, (2019) 3 SCC 318, Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. u/s Prasad Vassudev (2020) 20 SCC 01, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Further by way of rejoinder it has also been brought to notice that there was a hand written will of late Dr. Y.R. Krishna whereby the respondent No. 2 has been ouster from the property.

¶97

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for State opposes the prayer made and submits that the matter requires investigation as prima facie perusal of the FIR shows cognizable offence is made out.

¶98

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 also opposes the prayer made and submits that the mutation proceedings has been done

¶99

10

¶100

CRMP No.133 of 2022 and other connected matters

¶101

on the basis of false documents stating that only two living heirs of Late Dr. Y.R. Krishna i.e. petitioner No. 1 & 2. He further submits that the present petitioners in active connivance and conspiracy, prepared and forged, false and frivolous affidavits. He also submits that the FIR and investigation is as per law and warrants no interference as per provisions of 154 & 156 of CrPC. He further placed his reliance in the cases of Kishorbhal Gandubhai Pethani v. State of Gujarat, (2014) 13 SCC 539; George Bhaktan v. Rabindra Lele, (2014) 15 SCC 227; Dilip Kumar Agrawal v. Ram Kumar Chauhan, 2012 SCC OnLine Chh 305; Narendra Prasad P. v. N. Sujatha & Anr., 2022 SCC OnLine Kar 644; Bhupatbhai Pujabhai Bhoi v. Hiraben WO Somaji Bhoi, R/Special Criminal Application No. 2552 of 2013. He also submits that the respondent No. 2 is the co-owner of the hospital and Sr. Orthopedic Surgeon Consultant appointed on 23.10.2021 but he is not been paying the salary though the TDS has been deducted. So far as filing of case before the NCLT, Cuttack by the respondnet No.2 regarding the share holding dispute, as contended by the petitioners, is concerned, according to the respondent No.2 though he has served advance copy of the said case to the petitioners, but till date he has not filed any case before the NCLT, Cuttack.

¶102

WPCR NO. 302 of 2024

¶103

11

¶104

CRMP No.133 of 2022 and other connected matters

¶105

Heard Mr. Ashuotsh Singh Kachhawaha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. and Mr. Raj Kamal Singh through V.C. along with Mr. Suryapratap Yuddveer Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

¶106

The present petition has been filed with the following reliefs:-

¶107

10.1 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/direction/order to the respondent authorities and it may kindly be directed to produce entire records pertaining to the instant case.

¶108

10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/direction/order of appropriate nature quashing the impugned FIR No. 695/2024 dated 05.08.2024 (Annexure P/1) registered with PS: Civil Lines, Bilaspur (C.G) since it is contrary to Article 20 of the Constitution of India.

¶109

10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/direction/order restraining the respondents from taking any action against the petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid FIR.

¶110

10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/direction/order, quashing any consequential action/proceeding pursuant to the impugned FIR.

¶111

10.5 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s) as it may deem fit.

¶112

The facts of the case is that the petitioner Dr. Sudha Ram has

¶113

12

¶114

CRMP No.133 of 2022 and other connected matters

¶115

filed the instant petition challenging the very registration and initiation of FIR No. 695/2024, Dated 05.08.2024 registered at P.S. Civil Lines, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 R/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code 1860.

¶116

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is sincerely working in hospital/institution, looking into her sincerity and commitment towards the institution on 30.09.2023 she was appointed as consultant neuro-surgeon and medical superintendent of hospital. He further submits that the petitioner is controlling the patient care duty of the staff nurses ward boys and over all supervision of the medical side. The petitioner being a medical cum superintendent of hospital had no role in deduction of TDS of the Director’s salary. The respondent 4 is unnecessarily, malafide, intentionally lodged a FIR against the petitioner because she is a lady doctor and she is chairperson of grievance committee of the hospital and entertained the complaint against the respondent no. 4. He further prays for quashing of the present FIR and other criminal proceedings as the petitioner herein is wrongly been dragged into the family dispute, despite the fact that she has not played any role in the said matter. He further submits that the whole dispute is civil dispute and is given colour of criminal nature.

¶117

13

¶118

CRMP No.133 of 2022 and other connected matters

¶119

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for State and respondent No. 4 oppose the prayer made and submits that the matter requires investigation as prima facie perusal of the FIR shows cognizable offence is made out.

¶120

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition.

¶121

During the course of hearing, it is informed that the land in question has been already mutated in the name of the petitioners as well as the respondent No. 2 i.e. between the mother and two brothers and as the core issue has already been settled and further considering the fact that the dispute is between the family members and relates to inheritance of property and salary/ remuneration which is also purely of civil nature and the remedy is available to approach the competent civil court and further for remuneration/ salary the respondent No. 2 may avail remedy as may be available to him under the process of law.

¶122

Further, in the case of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 11 SCC 673 , this Court recognized that although the inherent powers of a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly, yet the High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature. This is what was held:

¶123

“12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power

¶124

14

¶125

CRMP No.133 of 2022 and other connected matters

¶126

is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.” (emphasis supplied)

¶127

Relying upon the decision in Paramjeet Batra (supra), this Court in Randheer Singh v. State of U.P. (2021) 14 SCC 626 , observed that criminal proceedings cannot be taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment. In Usha Chakraborty & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90 , relying upon Paramjeet Batra (supra) it was again held that where a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature, is given a cloak of a criminal offence, then such disputes can be quashed, by exercising abuse

¶128

15

¶129

CRMP No.133 of 2022 and other connected matters

¶130

the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of of process of the court.

¶131

In the case at hand, the dispute between the parties is purely of a civil nature and we see no criminal element here. Consequently, the case here is nothing but an abuse of the process. We therefore deem it proper to quash the FIR No. 1103/2021 dated 14.10.2021 and FIR No. 695/2024 dated 05.08.2024.

¶132

Accordingly, the present petitions i.e. CRMP No. 133 of 2022, WPCR No. 293 of 2024 & WPCR NO. 302 of 2024 are allowed . Ordered accordinlgy.

¶133

WPCR No. 274 of 2025 & WPCR No. 276 of 2025

¶134

The aforesaid WPCRs are filed with the prayer to direct the respondents to conclude the investigation in FIR bearing Crime No. 1103 of 2024 dated 14/10/2024 and FIR No. 695 of 2024 dated 05/08/2024 registered at Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and issue appropriate directions to list and expedite the final hearing of Criminal Misc. Petition No. 133/2022 pending before this Hon'ble Court;

¶135

As the FIR bearing Crime No. 1103 of 2024 dated 14/10/2024 and FIR No. 695 of 2024 dated 05/08/2024 registered at Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur, for the offences punishable under Sections

¶136

16

¶137

CRMP No.133 of 2022 and other connected matters

¶138

420, 467, 468, 471, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, are already

¶139

quashed, in the preceding paras of this judgment, thus nothing remains in these petitions to adjudicate.

¶140