Rajkumar Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:2626-DB

¶3

NAFR

¶4

Digitally signed by BABLU BABLU RAJENDRA RAJENDRA BHANARKAR BHANARKAR Date: 2025.01.18 11:36:52 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRMP No. 165 of 2025

¶7

1 - Rajkumar Chandrakar S/o Late Jagsay Chandrakar Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Darrabhata, Police Station Seepat, Bilaspur, Present Address Sharda Vihar Colony, Mopka, Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶8

2 - Roshan Chandrakar S/o Rajkumar Chandrakar Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Darrabhata, Police Station Seepat, Bilaspur, Present Address Sharda Vihar Colony, Mopka, Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Of Police Station Seepat, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

2 – ABC.

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pushpendra Singh Baghel, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Swajit Ubeja, Panel Lawyer. No.1/State

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶18

2

¶19

16.01.2025

¶20

Heard Mr. Pushpendra Singh Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Swajit Ubeja, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent No.1/State.

¶21

The petitioner has filed this petition with following relief:-

¶22

“It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and may further be pleased to quash the entire charge sheet/final report and the subsequent proceedings pending before the learned Special Judge Atrocity in Sessions Case No. 155/2022 in Crime No. 210/2022 dated 01.05.2022 registered at police station Seepat, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.), u/s 376, 34 of IPC, in the interest of justice.”

¶23

Brief facts necessary for the case are that the complainant who is

¶24

the daughter-in-law petitioner No. 1 Rajkumar Chandrakar and the wife of petitioner No. 2 Roshan Chandrakar has lodged an FIR on 01.05.2022 alleging that she got married with petitioner No. 2 in the year 2016 and out of their wedlock, one son was born presently aged about 8 years. She further alleged that petitioner No. 1 since 01.05.2021 has continuously sexually exploited her and when she informed about the incident to her husband, he also supported the act of petitioner No. 1-Rajkumar Chandrakar. She further alleged that both the petitioners have also shown obscene videos to her minor son. Based upon such allegation, the police of

¶25

3

¶26

Police Station Seepat has registered the offence under Section 376/34 of the IPC against the petitioners and finally filed the charge sheet before learned Special Judge, Atrocities, Bilaspur on 23.06.2022.

¶27

Earlier the petitioners had filed two CRMP’s bearing CRMP Nos.1276 of 2022 and 1277 of 2022 for quashment of chargesheet dated 23.06.2022 before this Court and the same were allowed (Annexure P-2) by learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 19.1.2023 and the charge-sheet and the proceedings pending before learned Special Judge, Atrocities, Bilaspur in Sessions Case No. 155/2022 registered at Police Station Seepat, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) were quashed in a common order.

¶28

Being aggrieved by the order dated 19.01.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. No.1276/2022 and Cr.M.P.No.1277/2022, the complainant of Cr.M.P. No.1277/2022 has filed Criminal Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was registered SLP Criminal Appeal No. 6466/2023 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the present complainant vide order dated 01.10.2024 (Annexure P-3) and the order passed by this Court dated 19.01.2023 was set-aside and liberty was granted to the respondents therein (petitioners herein) to challenge the final report.

¶29

While allowing the appeal filed by the complainant, the Hon'ble

¶30

4

¶31

Supreme Court in its order dated 01.10.2024 allowed both the Cr.M.P. No. 1276/2022 and Cr.M.P. No. 1277/2022 as both these CrMP’s was decided by this Court in a common order. Being aggrieved by the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 01.10.2024, the petitioners moved an application for modification of the order dated 01.10.2024 and the same was allowed vide order dated 20.12.2024 (Annexure P-4) and the order 01.10.2024 was modified to the effect that it shall only be applicable to Cr.M.P. No.1277/2022.

¶32

As per the liberty granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the petitioners has filed this second Cr.M.P. for quashment of final report/charge-sheet.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this present case just because of the property dispute and the property which have been purchased in the name of the complainant by petitioner No. 1 has been taken back in the name of petitioner No. 2 (husband) through gift deed, then the complainant filed a false and fabricated report of rape/sexual harassment against the petitioners just to grab the property and to get the extra amount and a piece of land from the petitioners in return. The complainant was continuously pressuring the petitioners to transfer the property and the papers of the house to her name and on denial by the petitioners, this false and fabricated report of rape has been lodged by the

¶34

5

¶35

complainant against the petitioners as one day prior to this report petitioner No.1 made a complaint before the Police Station Sarkanda, regarding the harassment by her daughter-in-law. Before this report petitioner No.1 has made a complaint before the Police Station Sarkanda against the complainant in which he was constantly been threatened by the complainant and abusing him and threatened him to implicate in a false case of rape, dowry and domestic violence, if he will not transfer the property and the house in her name. On the same date i.e. on 29.04.2022 the complainant has made a complaint in evening regarding domestic violence against the petitioners before the same Police Station Sarkanda and the police of Police Station Sarkanda has refused to entertain the complaint made by the complainant under Section 155 of CrPC and given 'Fena' to her by saying that the matter is related to personal family dispute, therefore no matter for interference is called for by the police. On the counter blast, the complainant has made a false and fabricated complaint before the Police Station Seepat regarding the rape committed by the petitioners, as petitioner No. 1 has made a complaint against the complainant prior to the complaint made by the complainant before the Police Station Sarkanda.

¶36

He further submits that in the complaint the complainant has made an allegation against the petitioners particularly petitioner No. 1 that he is raping her since 01.05.2021 to 24.04.2022 i.e. for the last one year, but she has not made any complaint regarding the

¶37

6

¶38

rape committed by petitioner No. 1 to any of her family members or her parents and even not made any FIR against the petitioners regarding the continuous physically abused by the petitioners and there is an inordinate delay in making the complaint for the period of one year and no plausible explanation was given. There is major contradiction in her statement under Section 161 of the CrPC and under Section 164 of the CrPC and also in the FIR as she has stated in her statement under Section 161 of the CrPC that on 21.03.2021 her mother-in-law went to Vrindavan along with one Raju Maharaj of Patera at 10:00 A.M. and her grand mother-in-law was went outside in the village, then petitioner No. 1 at about 11 A.M. forcibly committed rape with her, but before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, in her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC, she stated that on 21.03.2021 her mother-in-law and grand mother-in-law both went to Vrindavan for 9 days and on that day at 11 A.M. petitioner No. I forcibly committed rape, but in the FIR she has not disclosed both the above said statements and stated that the petitioners are continuously forcibly committed rape and domestic violence, which clearly shows the character of the complainant.

¶39

He also submits that petitioner No. 1 is a property dealer and having a lot of lands in his name and also transferred lots of property and house in the name of the daughter-in-law (complainant) and other family members. The property and the house which were in the name of the complainant in which the

¶40

7

¶41

power of attorney was made by the complainant is in the name of petitioner No. 2, which is the sole dispute between the petitioners and the complainant because the complainant continuously forcing the petitioners to transfer the entire property in her name and on refusal by the petitioners, false and fabricated case of rape and other frivolous allegations have been made by the complainant against the petitioners and right from beginning of marriage, the complainant does not want to live with petitioner No. 2 as she has some extra marital affairs with other persons and she was caught by petitioner No. 1 and also by petitioner No. 2 so many times in the late night talking with some other persons on phone. This was also one of the biggest reason to involve the petitioners in false and fabricated case of rape. He contended that it is crystal clear from the statements under Section 161 of the CrPC that cyclostyle statements of independent witnesses i.e. Umesh Chandrakar, Nirdosh Chandrakar and Bhoj Prakash Chandrakar have been recorded by the police. This shows that everything was prepared in the police station without any proper investigation regarding the real truth of the present incident. Earlier the complainant has lodged an FIR for domestic violence wherein there was no whisper regarding sexual assault or rape committed by petitioner No. 1 though the complainant while recording the statement is aware of the said fact, even the father of the complainant was aware of the said fact and she disclosed about the incident to her father (Ramakant Chandrakar) in

¶42

8

¶43

November 2021, however, the father of the complainant allowed her daughter (complainant) to reside in the same house and did not lodge any prompt FIR. Ramakant Chandrakar (father of the complainant) has surprisingly stated in his statement under Section 161 of the CrPC that his daughter told him about the entire incident of rape and the domestic violence by petitioner No. 1, but he under the fear of petitioner No. 1 has not made any complaint neither to the Police Station nor to anyone. This also creates the heavy doubt over the story created by the complainant.

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that petitioner No. 1 is living separately at Sharda Vihar Colony Mopka, Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur and has not visited his ancestral house at village Darrabhata, since 11 months prior to this incident and the complainant is living along with her husband at village Darrabhata Police Station Seepat, District Bilaspur, but inspite of this fact that petitioner No. 1 is not living with the complainant, but still false and fabricated case of rape has been made by the complainant against petitioner No. 1. He also contended that there is an unexplained delay in registration of the complaint coupled with other suspicious circumstances rendered prosecution case doubtful as to what retained the complainant for lodging FIR immediately after the incident at the police station concerned from the occurrence of the incident. There is no direct evidence to prove the involvement of the present petitioners in the

¶45

9

¶46

offence and therefore, aforesaid offence under Section 376/34 of the IPC, is not made out against the petitioners. Hence, the petition deserves to be allowed and entire charge-sheet / final report and subsequent proceedings pending before the Special Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Case No.155/2022 arising out of Crime No.210/2022 dated 01.05.2022 registered at Police Station, Seepat, District Bilaspur for offence under Section 376/34 of the IPC deserve to be set aside. He relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matters of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others , reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 , Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2013) 9 SCC 293 .

¶47

On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for respondent No.1/State submits that there are sufficient material collected during investigation for the aforesaid offence and considering the serious allegation of rape, it is not a rarest of rare case in which extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC can be exercised.

¶48

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

¶49

From perusal of the records, it appears that earlier the petitioners had filed two CRMP’s bearing CRMP Nos.1276 of 2022 and 1277 of 2022 for quashment of charge-sheet dated 23.06.2022 before this Court and the same were allowed (Annexure P-2) by learned

¶50

10

¶51

Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 19.1.2023 and the charge-sheet and the proceedings pending before learned Special Judge, Atrocities, Bilaspur in Sessions Case No. 155/2022 registered at Police Station Seepat, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) were quashed in a common order.

¶52

Being aggrieved by the order dated 19.01.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. No.1276/2022 and Cr.M.P.No.1277/2022, the complainant of Cr.M.P. No.1277/2022 has filed Criminal Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was registered SLP Criminal Appeal No. 6466/2023 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the present complainant vide order dated 01.10.2024 (Annexure P-3) and the order passed by this Court dated 19.01.2023 was set-aside and liberty was granted to the respondents therein (petitioners herein) to challenge the final report.

¶53

While allowing the appeal filed by the complainant, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 01.10.2024 allowed both the Cr.M.P. No. 1276/2022 and Cr.M.P. No. 1277/2022 as both these CrMP’s was decided by this Court in a common order. Being aggrieved by the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 01.10.2024, the petitioners moved an application for modification of the order dated 01.10.2024 and the same was allowed vide order dated 20.12.2024 (Annexure P-4) and the order 01.10.2024 was modified to the effect that it shall only be applicable to Cr.M.P.

¶54

11

¶55

No.1277/2022.

¶56

We have perused the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 164 CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur.

¶57

In para 2 of her statement, the complainant has stated that on 21.03.2021 her grand mother-in-law and her mother-in-law went to visit Vrindavan for 9 days. On the same day at 11 A.M., her father-in-law asked her for a glass of water to take medicine. When she went to his room to give him water, he caught her hand. He held her hand and forcefully had physical relations with her. She told him that she will tell his son, then her father-in-law said that he has brought her for his son and also for him. Two hours after the incident, when her husband came back from work, she was crying, then her husband asked her what happened, then she told him about the incident. After telling about the incident, her husband beat her up and abused her and threatened to kill her. Her husband told her to do whatever his father is saying. In para 3, she has stated that her father-in-law used to show obscene pornographic videos to her son. When she stopped him from doing so, he beat her and abused her. Her father-in-law used to forcefully have physical relations with her and did not let her call her family members. Her father-in-law used to threaten her that if she tell anyone about the incident, he would kill her son. In para 4 she has stated that on 29.03.2021 her mother-in-law and her

¶58

12

¶59

grand mother-in-law returned from Vridavan. After returning, her mother-in-law died due to COVID-19. Her father-in-law started asking her to do prostitution. She stayed at her in-laws house till 24.04.2022 because of her son. On 24.04.2022, her father-in-law and husband went to Mopka for work, then she got a chance and came to village Navadih, Sipat with her son. On the way, she informed her parents about the incident through the mobile phone of a person.

¶60

The Supreme Court in the matter of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others¹ has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. The Supreme Court has emphasised that though the court has the power to quash the FIR in suitable cases, the court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit.

¶61

In the instant case, from the perusal of the FIR lodged by the complainant and her 164 CrPC statement recorded before the

¶62

1 2021 SCC Online SC 315

¶63

13

¶64

Judicial Magistratre First Class, Bilaspur, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. The present petition does not fall in any of such category, wherein, this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC to quash the impugned FIR. Hence no ground exists for quashing of the FIR.

¶65

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perusing the documents appended with the petition, also considering the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 164 CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur and the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the petitioners have failed to make out a case for interference in this petition.

¶66

Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed .

¶67

Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-

¶68

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) (Judge) Chief Justice

¶69

Bablu

Rajkumar Chandrakar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumar Chandrakar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju Dinkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Paltan Ram Chakradhari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ghanshyam Sonteke Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Monith Kumar Mulle Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajeev Kumar Ambasth Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ganesh Ram Dahariya Vs State of Chhattisgarh