Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:1491 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 91 of 2025 1 - Ugrasen Verma S/o Gokul Prasad Verma Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Chandi, Police Station Suhela, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Krishna Kumar Verma S/o Late Bhojram Verma Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Piprahi, Police Station Suhela, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Santram Sahu S/o Late Khedu Ram Sahu Aged About 76 Years R/o Village Chandi, Police Station Suhela, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 4 - Dhaneshwari Sahu W/o Narsingh Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Chandi, Police Station Suhela, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sohan Lal Verma S/o Hanumant Lal Verma Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Chandi, Police Station Suhela, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 6 - Banshilal Sahu S/o Sukhiram Sahu Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Nayapara, Police Station Suhela, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 7 - Tekram Nishad S/o Birju Nishad Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Nayapara, Police Station Suhela, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Digitally signed by NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Date: 2025.01.22 17:10:14 +0530 Chhattisgarh 2
Legal Reasoning
8 - Smt. Mantorabai Pal W/o Gannu Pal Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Nayapara, Police Station Suhela, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 9 - Mukesh Kumar Sahu S/o Banshilal Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Semradih, Police Station Suhela, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 10 - Mukesh Kumar Verma S/o Bhojram Verma Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Piprahi, Police Station Suhela, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 11 - Sewaram Dhurandhar S/o Lilu Ram Dhurandhar Aged About 72 Years R/o Village Semradih, Police Station Suhela, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 12 - Pitambar Verma S/o Ghanshyam Verma Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Chandi, Police Station Suhela, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Suhela, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Banwari Lal Kushwah @ B. L. Kushwah S/o Madho Singh Kushwah Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Jamalpur, Police Station Kaulari, District Dhaulpur, Rajasthan ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Siddharth Pandey, Advocate. For the State : Ms. Priya Sharma, Panel Lawyer. 3 Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 09/01/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard finally. 2. The petitioners have preferred the present petition praying for expedite trial of Criminal Case No. 387/2021 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) and conclude it within stipulated time frame. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioners including Ugrasen Verma and others deposited the money in two companies, Garima Real Estate & Allied Limited and Garima Homes and Farm Houses Limited. The companies, represented by their directors, induced the Petitioners and other investors to invest with the promise of doubling their invested amounts. The Petitioners and other investors were misled by the Directors of Garima Real Estate & Allied Limited and Garima Homes and Farm Houses Limited, who promised to double the invested amounts. However, after collecting substantial sums, the Directors absconded, leading to a complaint being lodged with the local police. The investigation revealed that the companies were involved in fraudulent activities, having defrauded investors of a total sum of Rs. 1,22,48,871/-. 4. First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on 15.03.2018 by Petitioner No.3/Santram Sahu at Police Station Suhela, District Balodabazar, CG. stating that he invested Rs. 5 lakhs on 22.06.2013 in Garima Real Estate Company and Rs. 5 lakhs in Garima Company Raipur through 4 the company's agent in Village Sarkipar. The other two investors Dhaneshwari Sahu invested Rs. 5 lakhs and Dayalram Sahu invested Rs. 3 lakhs in Garima Chit Fund Company with the assurance of double the invested amount. However, despite the completion of the maturity period, the amount was not refunded. Thus, the FIR was registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC against the directors of Garima Real Estate Chit Fund Company. The investigation revealed that the directors had absconded with the investors' money, making it a case of criminal breach of trust, cheating, and fraudulent misrepresentation. 5. During the course of the investigation, several incriminating documents were seized and statements were recorded, confirming that the Directors of the two companies misappropriated large sums of money from the Petitioners and other investors. Based on the evidence, a charge sheet was filed by the Police on 25.02.2020 against the accused/respondent No. 2 under Sections 420 read with 34 of IPC, Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and Section 10 of Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005. 6. After the filing of the charge sheet, the case was registered as Sessions Trial No. 16 of 2020 'State of Chhattisgarh vs. Banwari Lal' on 28.02.2020. Thereafter, on 07.03.2020, 20.03.2020, 26.11.2020. 17.12.2020, 22.01.2021, and 27.01.2021 the case was adjourned for one or the other reasons. On 11.02.2021, the learned Sessions Judge Balodabazar, CG. discharged the accused/respondent No. 2 for the offence punishable under Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of 5 Depositors Interest Act, 2005 and directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Balodabazar, CG. 7. On 12.02.2021, the matter was placed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Balodabazar, CG. and Criminal Case No. 387/2021 was registered. On 23.02.2021, 08.03.2021, 23.03.2021, 05.04.2021, and 05.07.2021, the matter was adjourned due to the non-appearance of the accused/respondent No. 2 since it was fixed for arguments before charge. On 19.07.2021, the application under Section 437 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the accused/respondent No. 2 was rejected. On 30.07.2021, 16.08.2021, 28.08.2021, 06.09.2021, 20.09.2021, 05.10.2021, 20.10.2021, 29.10.2021, 11.11.2021, 29.11.2021, 13.12.2021, 24.12.2021, 12.01.2022, 07.03.2022, 26.03.2022, 11.04.2022, 26.04.2022, 11.05.2022, and 24.05.2022 the case was adjourned since the presence of the accused/respondent No. 2 could not be secured as he was locked up in Central Jail Bharatpur, Rajasthan. The Court repeatedly instructed the authorities to ensure the presence of the accused from Central Jail Bharatpur, Rajasthan but the matter continued to be delayed. 8. On 07.06.2022, 21.06.2022, 04.07.2022, 18.07.2022, 25.07.2022, 12.08.2022, 15.09.2022, 11.10.2022, 21.10.2022, 03.11.2022, 16.11.2022. 26.11.2022, 08.12.2022, 20.12.2022, 01.01.2023, 12.01.2023, 27.01.2023, 10.02.2023, 27.02.2023, 14.03.2023, 29.03.2023, 13.04.2023, 24.04.2023, 12.07.2023, 26.07.2023, 09.08.2023, 24.08.2023, 08.09.2023, 25.09.2023, 10.10.2023, 16.10.2023, 20.10.2023, 09.11.2023, 08.12.2023, 23.12.2023, 08.01.2024, 24.01.2024, 08.02.2024, 21.02.2024, 06.03.2024, 6 22.03.2024, 06.04.2024, 10.05.2024, 23.05.2024, 27.06.2024, 26.09.2024, 11.11.2024, and 28.10.2024 the presence of the accused could not be secured nor could he be produced through video conferencing facility as he was detained in Central Jail Bharatpur, Rajasthan. Despite the clear order passed by the learned trial Court, the matter remained pending for arguments before charge indicating the ongoing issues with securing the accused's appearance and the lack of progress in framing charges. 9. Vide order dated 08.12.2022 passed in M.Cr.C No. 9387/2022 Banwarilal Kushwaha vs. State of CG. by this Hon'ble Court, the accused/respondent No. 2 was released on bail. 10. Thereafter, on 25.11.2024 bail bonds were furnished by the accused/respondent No. 2 in pursuance of the order dated 08.12.2022 passed in M.Cr.C No. 9387/2022 Banwarilal Kushwaha vs. State of CG.' by this Hon'ble Court. On 28.11.2024, an application for the issuance of production warrant for the production of the accused/respondent No. 2 was issued by the learned trial Court since the accused/respondent No. 2 was detained in Central Jail Bharatpur, Rajasthan and the matter was fixed for 20.12.2024. The learned trial Court scheduled the case for pre-charge arguments, but charges were still not framed, and no meaningful progress was made in the trial. 11. Despite the charge sheet being filed and the existence of substantial evidence, the case has been stuck at the stage of framing of charge. The learned trial Court has not framed charges against the accused, citing multiple adjournments and the non-appearance of the accused, which has caused undue delay in the case's progress. Due to the 7 absence of the accused and the non-presentation of a warrant, the charge framing was delayed. 12. The matter remains unresolved, and the next date for pre-charge arguments is scheduled for 09th January 2025. Despite several years passing since the filing of the charge sheet and numerous adjournments, no charges have been framed, and the trial remains stuck in the pre-charge phase due to the absence of the accused and the continuous delays in court proceedings further delaying the justice process. 13. The Petitioners have suffered undue hardship due to the delay in trial, and their fundamental right to a speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, has been violated. The prolonged delay and adjournments have severely affected the ability of the Petitioners to secure justice. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the right to speedy trial has been read into Article 21 of the Constitution of India by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in numerous judgments. Despite several orders for the production of the accused/respondent No. 2 passed by the learned trial Court, the presence of the accused could not be secured which shows the failure of justice. Charge framing proceedings has been unduly delayed due to the absence of the accused. The trial has been stalled for over three years, and ne substantial progress has been made despite the charge sheet having been filed on 25.02.2020. Some of the petitioners are aged about 70 years or more and the delay in the conclusion of trial would render the entire exercise futile. Further, the 8 money of the investors' would go into vain with the accused persons enjoying the fruits of the investors' hard earned money. 15. Learned State counsel has opposes the prayer made by counsel for the petitioners. 16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly the fact that the charges have not been framed against the accused and also considering the limited prayer of the petitioners, the present CRMP is disposed of with a direction the trial Court to expedite the trial expeditiously as far as possible. 18.
Decision
Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Kamde