Navneet Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:51109-DB

¶3

SOURABH BHILWAR

¶4

Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.10.15 10:44:59 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

NAFR

¶7

CRMP No. 477 of 2024

¶8

1 - Navneet Jaiswal S/o Shri Laxmikant Jaiswal Aged About 40 Years R/o Opposite Geeta Palace, Jabdapara To Chantidih Road, P.S. Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

2 - Laxmikant Jaiswal S/o Late Shri Anand Ram Jaiswal Aged About 59 Years R/o Opposite Geeta Palace, Jabdapara To Chantidih Road, P.S. Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Petitioner(s)

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Home (Police) Nava Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

2 - The Superintendent Of Police Distt. Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶14

3 - Station House Officer-Cum-Deputy Superintendent Of Police P.S. Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribes Mungeli, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶15

4 - Santosh Kumar Bhaskar S/o Sohluram Bhaskar Aged About 43 Years R/o Vill. Koylari Kala, Outpost- Damapur, P.S. Kunda, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh

¶16

2

¶17

5 - Chandrapal Singh Banrji S/o Late Shri Tikaram Banrji Aged About 26 Years R/o Vill. Kodva Gobrra, P.S. Kunda, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh

¶18

6 - Faguram Sahu @ Raju Sahu S/o Itwari Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Jogipur, P.S. Pipriya, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh

¶19

7 - Saheb Das Berman S/o Kulbul Berman Aged About 41 Years R/o Vill. Rajpur Mohar, P.S. Fasterpur, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶20

Respondent(s)

¶21

(Cause title taken from CIS)

¶22

For Petitioner(s) :	Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, Advocate
For Respondents/State :	Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer
For Respective Respondents :	Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate

¶23

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

¶24

Order on Board

¶25

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶26

14/10/2025

¶27

The instant CRMP has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer :-

¶28

“It is, therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that the Charge Sheet bearing No. 2/2023 dated 24/09/2023 filed under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., & F.I.R. bearing no. 2/2023 dated 15/07/2023 (Annexure P/1), with entire subsequent Criminal Proceedings of Special Case (Atrocity) No. 10/2023 pending before learned Special Judge (Atrocity Act) Mungeli (C.G.), may kindly be quashed/ set aside in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.”

¶29

3

¶30

The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner No.1, a registered contractor and partner of M/s Bhavani Enterprises, Bilaspur, had undertaken a government construction work at Village Fasterpur, District Mungeli, for which an agreement was executed with the Complainant/Respondent No.4. After completion of about 90% of the work, a dispute arose regarding non-payment of certain amounts, leading the complainant to file several complaints before various authorities, including the police, the Collector, and the Chhattisgarh State Scheduled Caste Commission, alleging non-payment and caste-based abuse. However, upon inquiry, it was found that the dispute was purely of a civil nature relating to payment, and no incident of caste abuse was established. Despite this, the complainant continued to initiate multiple proceedings with the intent to pressurize the petitioners.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the charge-sheet filed under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. is the outcome of an improper and incomplete investigation and is therefore illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that the complainant, with malafide intention, by misusing the process of law lodged the questioned complaint as instruments to recover or settle the civil dispute relating to payment. He also submits that the investigating agency failed to consider that in the initial complaint dated 01.08.2020 there was no allegation of caste-

¶32

4

¶33

based abuse, and such allegations were subsequently developed in the later complaint dated 05.08.2020 only to convert a civil dispute into a false case under the Atrocities Act. The earlier preliminary investigation dated 31.01.2021 had already found the complaint to be false and baseless, and independent witnesses had categorically denied any incident of caste abuse; however, their statements were deliberately omitted in the present chargesheet. It is further urged that the witnesses from Respondent Nos.5 to 7 are not independent but are interested witnesses, being directly connected with the complainant either as subcontractor or co-workers, and their testimonies are motivated and unreliable. It is also pointed out that the dispute relating to payment between the parties is already sub judice before the learned Labour Court, Bilaspur, which further indicates that the present criminal proceedings have been initiated with an ulterior motive to exert pressure upon the petitioners.

¶34

Learned counsel for the respondent, however, opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the investigation has been conducted in accordance with law and that the charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. is supported by sufficient material. It is contended that the allegations of bias or suppression are baseless and raised only to delay the proceedings. The respondent further submits that the issues raised involve disputed questions of fact which can be

¶35

5

¶36

decided only during trial.

¶37

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

¶38

From bare perusal of the material available on record, it is manifest that there is a dispute between the parties relating to payment and for which the matter is pending before the Labour Court and it is trite that the civil nature disputes cannot be given colour of criminality to settle their vengeance.

¶39

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the dispute between the parties essentially pertains to non-payment of certain contractual dues arising out of a construction agreement. The material placed on record reveal that the controversy is purely of a civil nature and the same is already sub judice before the learned Labour Court, Bilaspur, in proceedings instituted under the Payment of Wages Act. It is further evident that the allegations of caste-based abuse were introduced at a later stage and are not corroborated by the statements of independent witnesses recorded during the preliminary investigation, which had earlier found no such incident to have occurred. The filing of the present charge-sheet, therefore, appears to be the result of an incomplete and improper investigation initiated to exert undue pressure upon the petitioners in a civil dispute.

¶40

6

¶41

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the present petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed . The F.I.R. bearing No. 2/2023 dated 15.07.2023, the charge-sheet bearing No. 2/2023 dated 24.09.2023 filed under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., and all subsequent proceedings in Special Case (Atrocity) No. 10/2023 pending before the Learned Special Judge (Atrocity Act), Mungeli (C.G.), are hereby quashed.

¶42

Accordingly, the instant petition stands allowed.

¶43

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

¶44

S. Bhilwar

Navneet Jaiswal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

Navneet Jaiswal 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

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Deepak Phabyani

Murali Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manoj Kumar Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Devlal Khairwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sunil Kotadia Vs Priya Kankaria

Rajendra Prasad Mishra Vs State Of Chhattisgarh