Allowed¶33

Sunil Agrahari v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC21 Aug 2025CRMP/711/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FIR quashing under Section 482 CrPC; FIR No. 0035/2023 dated 20/03/2023, P.S. Padnabhpur, District Durg; offences under Sections 120-B, 34, 420, 467, 468, 471; origin in order dated 10.08.2022 on private respondent's Section 156(3) CrPC application; parity with co-accused Anil Singh Parihar's allowed petition CRMP No. 820 of 2023 (order dated 19.08.2025); petitioners Sunil Agrahari, Chandrakant Sharma, Pawan Kumar Nayak; private respondent Meharbank Singh served but unrepresented; CRMP No. 711 of 2023; decided 22.08.2025 by Ramesh Sinha, C.J. with Bibhu Datta Guru, J.; neutral citation 2025:CGHC:42660.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the impugned FIR/Crime No. 0035/2023 dated 20/03/2023 of Police Station Padnabhpur, District Durg qua petitioners Sunil Agrahari, Chandrakant Sharma and Pawan Kumar Nayak. ¶33

Sunil Agrahari Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the impugned FIR/Crime No. 0035/2023 dated 20/03/2023 of Police Station Padnabhpur, District Durg qua petitioners Sunil Agrahari, Chandrakant Sharma and Pawan Kumar Nayak.

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned FIR No. 0035/2023 dated 20/03/2023 registered at Police Station Padnabhpur, District Durg against the petitioners should be quashed under Section 482 of CrPC. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

The instant petition is allowed and the impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 0035/2023, dated 20/03/2023, registered by Police Station Padnabhpur, District Durg for offence under Sections 120-B, 34, 420, 467, 468, 471 is quashed with respect to petitioners Sunil Agrahari, Chandrakant Sharma and Pawan Kumar Nayak.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

Since a similarly situated petition, CRMP No. 820 of 2023, filed by co-accused Anil Singh Parihar challenging the same impugned order dated 10.08.2022 (issued on the private respondent's Section 156(3) CrPC application) and the same impugned FIR was allowed by this Court vide order dated 19.08.2025 after hearing counsel for all parties including private respondent No.4, the present petitioners are also entitled for the same benefit.

¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR — CRMP No. 711 of 2023 — Decided 22.08.2025 — Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice (Coram: Ramesh Sinha, C.J. and Bibhu Datta Guru, J.). Petition under Section 482 of CrPC by three officials — Sunil Agrahari (Public Relation Officer, Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon), Chandrakant Sharma (Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Rajjunda, Balod) and Pawan Kumar Nayak (Asstt. Revenue Inspector, Municipal Corporation, Durg) — seeking quashing of FIR No. 0035/2023 dated 20/03/2023 of Police Station Padnabhpur, District Durg, registered for offence under Sections 120-B, 34, 420, 467, 468, 471 on the basis of an order dated 10.08.2022 issued on the application of private respondent Meharbank Singh under Section 156(3) CrPC. Notice on respondent No.4 was served (office report dated 26.04.2023) but neither he nor any counsel appeared. The Court noted that co-accused Anil Singh Parihar had filed a similarly situated petition, CRMP No. 820 of 2023, challenging the same order dated 10.08.2022 and the same impugned FIR, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 19.08.2025 after hearing counsel for all parties including respondent No.4. Holding the present petitioners entitled to the same benefit, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned FIR qua the three petitioners.

2025:CGHC:42660

ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA

Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 711 of 2023

¶6

NAFR

¶7

1 - Sunil Agrahari S/o Shri Mohan Lal Agrahari Aged About 48 Years Presently Working As Public Relation Officer, At- Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, R/o District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

2 - Chandrakant Sharma S/o Late Ramkrishna Sharma Aged About 53 Years Presently Working As Chief Municipal Officer, At- Nagar Panchayat, Rajjunda, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh, R/o Rajunda, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

3 - Pawan Kumar Nayak S/o Late Netram Nayak Aged About 44 Years Presently Working As- Asstt. Revenue Inspector, At- Municipal Corporation, Durg, Chhattisgarh, R/o Urla Road, Ramnagar, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Petitioners

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

2 - The Superintendent Of Police Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶14

3 - The Station Head Officer Police Station Padnabhpur, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

4 - Meharbank Singh S/o Darshan Singh Aged About 50 Years R/o Navjot Apartment, 3rd Floor, Sindhiya Nagar, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent Nos.1 to 3/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.4 : None appears though served -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶18

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

¶19

Order on Board

¶20

¶21

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶22

22.08.2025

¶23

Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶24

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of CrPC with the following prayer :-

¶25

“a. This Honble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned FIR.

¶26

b. This Honb'le Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned FIR no. 0035/2023, dt. 20/03/2023 registered by the P. S. [Annexure-A/1]. Padnabhpur, District Durg [C. G.]

¶27

c. Any other relief as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.”

¶28

As per the office report dated 26.04.2023, notice issued to the private respondent No.4 has been served to him. But, inspite of the service of notice, neither the private respondent No.4 nor any counsel is representing on his behalf to contest the matter.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that similarly situated petition bearing CRMP No. 820 of 2023 was filed by the co-accused namely Anil Singh Parihar, challenging the impugned order dated 10.08.2022 issued on the basis application filed by the private respondent under Section 156(3) CrPC as well as the

¶30

¶31

impugned FIR, which was allowed vide order dated 19.08.2025 after hearing learned counsel for the parties including the counsel, appearing on behalf of private respondent No.4 in said case and as such, the present petitioners are also entitled for the same benefit.

¶32

Considering the fact that similarly situated petition bearing CRMP No. 820 of 2023, which was filed by the co-accused namely Anil Singh Parihar, challenging the impugned order dated 10.08.2022 issued on the basis application filed by the private respondent under Section 156(3) CrPC as well as the impugned FIR, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 19.08.2025 after hearing learned counsel for the parties including the counsel, appearing on behalf of private respondent No.4 in said case and as such, the present petitioners are also entitled for the same benefit.

¶33

Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed . The impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 0035/2023, dated 20/03/2023 registered by the Police Station, Padnabhpur, District Durg for offence under Section 120-B, 34, 420, 467, 468, 471 with respect to petitioners – Sunil Agrahari, Chandrakant Sharma and Pawan Kumar Nayak is hereby quashed.

¶34

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

¶35

Chandra

Sunil Agrahari v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Agrahari 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ankur Singh Thakur Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Uma Shankar Shrivastava Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sadhuram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jaiprakash Vaidya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramnath Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nalnikant Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh