Uma Shankar Shrivastava Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA TIWARI TIWARI Date: 2025.08.22 10:44:19 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:42332-DB

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRMP No. 482 of 2023

¶7

Uma Shankar Shrivastava S/o Late Shri Narmada Prasad Aged About 77 Years R/o 299, P.N.T. Colony, Near S.B.I. Zonal Office, Bairan Bazar, Police Station Kotwali, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police StationSarsiwa, District - Raipur/now - Balodabazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Hetram Taigar S/o Mahettar Ram Taiger Aged About 44 Years Occupation Agriculturist R/o Village Manpasar, Police Station Sarsiwa, District - Raipur Now Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Dubey, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer

¶13

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

¶14

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶15

21.08.2025

¶16

1. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No.1.

¶17

2

¶18

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):-

¶19

“(1) Call for records of the trial court i.e. C.J. M.Raipur, now Baloda Bazar (C.G.) in Criminal case No.1637/2012.

¶20

(2) The name of petitioner may kindly be deleted from the case diary of police and the charge sheet against the petitioner kindly be quashed.

¶21

(3) Call for the case dairy for proper adjudication of the case.

¶22

(4) If Any other relief which may be deemed fit in favour of the petitioner kindly be passed by this Hon'ble court, in the interest of justice.”

¶23

3. Brief facts of the case, are that one Hetram Taigar lodged an FIR on 29.11.2011 at Police Station Sarsiwa, District Baloda Bazar, registered as Crime No. 241/2010 under Sections 420, 409, 120B, 411, 414 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and Sections 4 & 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. On the basis of the said FIR, Criminal Case No. 1637/2012 was registered before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baloda Bazar. Investigation revealed that one M. Velautha Kumar, Managing Director of Royal Vision Care

¶24

3

¶25

Marketing & Services Pvt. Ltd., Madurai, had collected deposits from several persons in Chhattisgarh on false assurances, paid dividends for a few months and thereafter shut down operations. He misled the complainant by stating that the deposited amount was with M/s Matoshree Developers, and on that basis, the police implicated the said firm and its alleged partners including the present petitioner, who was granted anticipatory bail by this Hon’ble Court on 02.01.2014. However, the challan relied upon an agreement dated 04.07.2009 wrongly showing the petitioner as a partner of M/s Matoshree Developers, whereas the duly notarized partnership deed dated 03.07.2009 and records of the Registrar of Firms (Registration No. 452/2009-10) clearly establish that the only partners were Shri Subhash Chand Sharma, Shri Sunil Kumar Ojha and Smt. Mukta Shrivastava. At no point was the petitioner a partner of the said firm or involved in collecting money from any person. Despite this, his name has been included in the charge sheet without any allegation, statement, or material evidence against him. The petitioner, a senior citizen aged about 77 years, is unnecessarily facing mental and physical hardship in a criminal trial in which he has no role. The false implication of the petitioner, despite clear documentary proof to the contrary, makes out a fit case for his exoneration from the pending criminal proceedings.

¶26

4. Upon a pointed query made by this Court regarding the present status of the trial, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶27

4

¶28

the prosecution has already examined as many as 33 witnesses before the trial Court. Despite this, he seeks to justify his prayer that the petitioner’s name be deleted from the police case diary and the charge sheet, on the ground that there is no substantive material against him and that he has been wrongly implicated as a partner of M/s Matoshree Developers.

¶29

5. Having given due consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be accepted at this belated stage. It is not in dispute that the trial is already at an advanced stage, with examination of 33 prosecution witnesses completed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) , Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra ((2021) 6 SCC 73) , and M. Jayanthi v. K.R. Meenakshi ((2019) 5 SCC 494) has consistently held that inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C./528 of the BNSS are to be exercised sparingly and with great caution, and ordinarily not at a stage when the trial is proceeding on the basis of material collected during investigation. Interference at such a stage is impermissible, as it would amount to short-circuiting the criminal process and prejudicing the trial.

¶30

6. It is also relevant to note that as many as four criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner, out of which he has secured acquittal in one case, whereas three other cases are still

¶31

5

¶32

pending consideration. In such circumstances, this Court is unable to accept the contention that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, particularly when the trial Court is already seized of the matter on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution.

¶33

7. In view of the above discussion, and particularly keeping in mind that the trial is at an advanced stage, this Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C./528 of the BNSS for quashing of the charge sheet. Accordingly, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed .

¶34

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

¶35

Anu

Uma Shankar Shrivastava v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uma Shankar Shrivastava 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

Rajkumar Mali Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Piyush Gangwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Piyush Gangwani (in Person) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ankur Singh Thakur Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sadhuram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suresh Markam Vs State of Chhattisgarh