Vinay Kumar Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:59110

¶3

RAHUL JHA

¶4

Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.12.06 12:19:58 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

NAFR

¶7

CRMP No. 321 of 2024

¶8

Vinay Kumar Verma S/o Late Shri Mahesh Kumar Verma Aged About 56 Years R/o Juni Line, Behind Hotel Suruchi, Bilaspur, Thana City Kotwali, Tehsil And Distt. Bilaspur, C.G.

¶9

Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bilha, Tehsil- Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur, C.G.

¶12

2 - Arun Kumar Verma S/o Late Shri Shankar Prasad Verma R/o B-24, Shailendra Nagar Raipur Kotwali, Distt. Raipur C.G.

¶13

Respondent(s)

¶14

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, Advocate For State : Mr. Soumya Rai, PL For Respondent No.2: None

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J

¶20

05/12/2025

¶21

2

¶22

At the very outset, Mr. B.P. Singh, learned counsel, submits that he has already furnished a No Objection Certificate to respondent No. 2 and presently has no instructions in the matter. Since the matter is an old one, we consider it appropriate to proceed and hear the matter finally.

¶23

The instant CRMP has been filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Surksha Sanhita, 2023 for the following prayer:

¶24

“It is therefore, prayed that the instant CRMP may be allowed and the FIR No. 08/2023, Police Station – Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur dated 09/01/2023 and chargesheet dated 10/07/2023 and the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner may be quashed, in the interest of justice.”

¶25

Facts of the case are that the complainant, Arun Kumar Verma appeared at the police station and submitted a written report stating that contractors Veer Singh and Vinay Verma had illegally excavated soil from his land situated at Village Bitkuli, P.H.N. 18, R.N.M., bearing Khasra No. 267/2, area 5.39 acres (2.182 hectares). He alleged that the accused had dug out the soil, stolen and sold it, and in the process caused substantial damage to his land and altered its nature. He further stated that on visiting the land on 21.11.2022, he found that the soil had been removed and the land had been damaged. Upon inquiry from local villagers, he came to know that the excavation and theft of soil were carried out by contractor Veer Singh at the instance of his nephew Vinay Verma, causing him heavy loss. On finding the commission of offences under Sections 379 and 427 of the IPC, an FIR was registered and

¶26

3

¶27

investigation commenced.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the appellant has been falsely implicated in a purely civil and family property dispute relating to Khasra No. 267, in which he himself is a co-owner and title holder. The FIR is a counterblast arising out of long-standing civil litigation, partition proceedings, and revenue disputes between the appellant and respondent No.2. Even if the entire charge-sheet is taken at face value, there is no prima facie material to show that any soil was stolen, no property damage has been established, no stolen article has been seized, and even the memorandum statements of co-accused do not indicate the appellant’s involvement. The allegations are clearly motivated to settle personal scores, particularly in view of multiple civil litigation and injunction orders operating between the parties, and are intended only to harass the appellant. The FIR itself shows that the appellant was not present at the spot, and there was no occasion for him to commit theft on land that is jointly owned by him. Continuation of the criminal proceedings, therefore, amounts to abuse of the process of law as repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, especially when no offence under Sections 34, 379 or 427 IPC is made out.

¶29

Learned counsel for the State submits that sufficient material exists on record to prima facie indicate the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offences, therefore, no interference is warranted at this stage.

¶30

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings

¶31

4

¶32

as well as the material available on record.

¶33

Having considered the rival submissions, this Court finds that the dispute between the parties is essentially rooted in long-standing civil and revenue proceedings concerning Khasra No. 267, a property jointly held by the petitioner and respondent No. 2. The allegations in the FIR pertain to alleged illegal excavation and theft of soil; however, the material collected during investigation does not show that the petitioner was present at the spot or that he had any direct participation in the alleged act. The undisputed position is that the petitioner himself is one of the co-owners of the land in question, and the complaint arises from pre-existing civil discord rather than any independent criminal conduct.

¶34

The investigation papers, including the statements recorded and the memorandum of co-accused, do not disclose any overt act on the part of the petitioner. No material has been brought on record to show that he instructed or engaged anyone to excavate soil, that he benefitted from any alleged sale of soil, or that he had any role in damaging the property. Even the prosecution has not recovered any stolen soil, nor has it established that any financial gain accrued to the petitioner. The complainant has also failed to point out any independent witness or documentary material indicating the petitioner’s involvement.

¶35

Even assuming the entire charge-sheet and prosecution material to be true at face value, it does not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 379 or 427 IPC insofar as the petitioner is

¶36

5

¶37

concerned. There is neither proof of dishonest intention nor evidence of mischief or destruction of property attributable to him. The allegations are vague, omnibus, and appear to be an extension of the civil dispute, without any specific act of theft, damage, or common intention being made out against the petitioner.

¶38

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that where the allegations, even if uncontroverted, do not make out any offence, or where the criminal process is invoked to settle personal scores arising from civil disputes, continuation of prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Tested on this touchstone, the present case fails to disclose the foundational facts necessary to prosecute the petitioner for offences under Sections 34, 379, or 427 IPC.

¶39

Significantly, the gravamen of the accusation is directed primarily against the contractor Veer Singh, who is alleged to have engaged in excavation activities, and against Vinay Verma, who is stated to have instigated him. No material indicates that the present petitioner who is implicated solely because of his familial relationship with respondent No. 2 and the background of civil disputes had any role in the alleged commission of the offence. In absence of any demonstrable nexus between the petitioner and the alleged acts, continuation of criminal proceedings would be wholly unwarranted.

¶40

This Court is therefore of the considered view that allowing the criminal prosecution to proceed against the petitioner, in the absence of any

¶41

6

¶42

credible material and in the backdrop of long-standing civil litigation, would amount to an abuse of the process of law and would serve no useful purpose.

¶43

Consequently, the CRMP is allowed . The FIR dated 09.01.2023 registered as Crime No. 08/2023 at Police Station Bilha, the charge-sheet dated 10.07.2023, and all consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom, insofar as they pertain to the present petitioner, are hereby quashed.

¶44

Sd/Sd/-

¶45

(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶46

Rahul/Bhilwar

Vinay Kumar Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Kumar Verma v. 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

M/S Sai Dk Engineering and Projects Private Limited Vs Steel Authority of India Limited

M/S Sai Engineering, Vs Steel Authority of India Limited

Jeevan Majhwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashwani Kumar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Kumar Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pradeep Kumar Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh