Avinash Kumar Chandravanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

2025:CGHC:32264-DB

NAFR

AMARDEEP CHOUBEY

Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.07.11 15:53:48 +0530

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

CRMP No. 578 of 2023

¶8

Avinash Kumar Chandravanshi S/o Shri Sewa Ram Chandravanshi Aged About 47 Years R/o B-01 Kuber Apartment Shanker Nagar, Opposite Aarogya Hospital, Police Station Shankar Nagar Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 - District Magistrate District Jashpur, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

3 - Station House Officer Police Station- Pathalgaon, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

4 - Dev Kumar Yadav, S/o. Purno Ram Yadav, Resident Of Village - Mudekela, P.S. Pathalgaon, District - Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

(Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioners : Mr. Anmol Singh, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate.

¶17

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

¶18

2

¶19

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶20

10/07/2025

¶21

Mr. Anmol Singh, Advocate submits that he has filed memo of appearance today itself for prosecute the matter on behalf of the petitioner.

¶22

I.A. No.3/2025, application for taking additional documents on record.

¶23

On due consideration, the same is allowed.

¶24

Earlier the instant CRMP was rejected by this Court vide order dated 9-7-2024 and against the said order, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal NO)S).2274/2025 arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No(S).2583/2025 wherein the Supreme Court by order dated 28.04.2025 restored the aforesaid Cr.M.P. and directed this Court for hearing of the same afresh particularly on the issue that the petitioner has resigned as a Director on 01.08.2010 and in this regard, Form 32 was also produced by him.

¶25

In view of the aforesaid order of the Supreme Court, we are considering this CRMP afresh.

¶26

The present Cr.M.P. under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 has been filed by the petitioner for quashment of the FIR dated 25.03.2019 registered as Crime No. 0042/2019 at Police Station Pathalgaon,

¶27

3

¶28

Jashpur and charge-sheet dated 22.01.2022 for the offence under Section 420, 120 (B) of IPC and Section 9, 10 of The Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005, which has been lodged by Respondent No. 4.

¶29

Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainant Devkumar yadav lodged complaint before Police Station Pathalgaon, District Jashpur alleging that he along with few others have deposited an amount of Rs.9,45,600/- in the Gurukripa Infra Reality India Limited during the period of 01.01.2011 to 30.04.2014 on the pretext of doubling the amount. Thereafter, in lieu of the deposited amount they provided them with Bond papers. Ultimately, they closed the company and subsequently fled from the scene. On the basis of the said allegation the Police Station Pathalgaon, District Jashpur registered an offence in crime no. 0042/2019. Thereafter, the concerning police station arrested the applicant in the pretext of alleging Director of the aforesaid company.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on 25.03.2019, Mr. Devkumar Yadav/ Respondent No. 4 lodged an FIR bearing Crime No. 0042/2019 under Section 420, 120 (B) of IPC and Section 9, 10 of The Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005 against the Director/ Proprietor of the Company known as Gurukripa Infra Reality India Limited. As shown from the FIR, it clearly appears that, Gurpreet Singh is the Director/ Proprietor of the Company and the present petitioner

¶31

4

¶32

namely Avinash Kumar Chandravanshi has also served as one of the Director of the Gurukripa Infra Reality India Limited. Therefore, the concerning Police has arrested the present petitioner for the alleged crime. He further submitted that the date of offence is reflected during the period of 01.01.2011 to 30.04.2014. However, the present petitioner joined the Company as a Director on 20.07.2009 and later resigned from the Company on 01.08.2010 and careful perusal of the entire charge-sheet and FIR, it also appears that the incident took place during the period of 01.01.2011 to 30.04.2014 and the aforesaid period, the present petitioner was not even a Director of the said Company. Therefore the present petitioner is filed this petition and prays for quashing of FIR dated 25.03.2019 as well as charge-sheet dated 22.01.2022.

¶33

The learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, submits that on the pretext of returning double amount, the accused persons got deposited the huge amount from the respondent and other depositors in the name of Gurukripa Infra Reality India Limited and issued bond papers to the depositors, but later on the accused persons have closed the said Company and not returned single penny to the depositors including the private respondent. The present petitioner namely Avinash Kumar Chandravanshi was also the Director of the said Company, he is also involved in the commission of crime. He further submits that the document filed

¶34

5

¶35

by the petitioner in support of his case, is not an authentic document and therefore the same cannot be given importance for quashing the criminal proceeding against the petitioner. Therefore, the present Cr.M.P. is liable to be dismissed.

¶36

Learned State counsel would submit that it is evident that, the Police has registered the FIR on the basis of the written complaint made by the complainant on disclosing commission of cognizable offence committed by the petitioner being the director of the aforesaid Company. The Police has fairly conducted the investigation on the complaint made by the complainant and once the FIR has been registered, it has to be investigated and taken to its logical end.

¶37

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents.

¶38

Bare perusal of the material available on record, it is manifest that Gurpreet Singh is the Director/ Proprietor of the Company and the present petitioner namely Avinash Kumar Chandravanshi has also served as one of the Director of the Gurukripa Infra Reality India Limited. On this ground, the concerning Police has arrested the present petitioner for the alleged crime. It is also apparent that the period of alleged offence is between 01.01.2011 to 30.04.2014.

¶39

Further perusal of the document Annexure – A/2, which is a

¶40

6

¶41

document relating to View Director/Designated Partner Details issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, it is evident that the present petitioner namely; Avinash Kumar Chandravanshi joined as a Director on 20.07.2009 of Gurukripa Infra Reality India Limited and resigned from the said company from the post of Director on 1/8/2010 i.e. his date of cessation. From the said fact it can be seen that during the commission of alleged offence i.e. 1-1-2011 to 30-4-2014 the present petitioner was not the Director of the company and not at all related with the affairs of the company because much before the alleged offence the petitioner resigned from the post of Director on 1-8-2010.

¶42

Considering the entire facts, circumstances of the case and particularly considering the fact that during the period of alleged offence i.e. 01.01.2011 to 30.04.2014, the petitioner was not the Director of the company, the FIR dated 25.03.2019 registered as Crime No. 0042/2019 at Police Station Pathalgaon, Jashpur and the subsequent charge-sheet for the offence under Section 420, 120 (B) of IPC and Section 9, 10 of The Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005, in respect of the petitioner, are hereby quashed.

¶43

Ergo, the instant CRMP is allowed.

¶44

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

¶45

Amardeep/Shoaib

Avinash Kumar Chandravanshi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avinash Kumar Chandravanshi 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Amit Mittal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ishwar Shrivas Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Yalamanchili Kamala Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mukchund Ram Rajwade Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

Pratik Kumar Jaisawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rampyari Vs State of Chhattisgarh