ALOK v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Home Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Distt

: Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17/08/2026

#1. Heard Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, learned counsel for the 2 petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. S. Baghel, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for the respondent/State.

#2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs: "1. That Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned Istighasa No. 1-A/2024 in connection with offence U/S. 403 of IPC and also quash the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 251/24 registered and pending before the Satyanand Prasad Judicial Magistrate 1st class Korba (C.G.) against the petitioner by issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders.

#2. Any other relief/relief's which Hon'ble court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.”

#3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of Istighasa No. 01-A/2024 submitted before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba, for the alleged offence under Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the petitioner is that on 19.02.2021, acting upon alleged secret information, the police intercepted mini-truck bearing registration No. CG 13 AF 2928, carrying industrial scrap, and apprehended the petitioner along with Mukesh Kumar Sahu, without there being any complaint of theft, missing property report or claim of ownership by any person or industrial establishment. Thereafter, notices 3 were issued under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for production of documents relating to the scrap, and several industrial establishments, including South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, Bharat Aluminium Company Limited and LANCO, were requested to identify the seized material, but none claimed ownership thereof or reported any theft. Despite absence of any complainant or evidence of dishonest misappropriation, the police initially proceeded under Sections 379/34 IPC and Section 41(1)(d) Cr.P.C. The petitioner and Mukesh Kumar Sahu had earlier filed W.P.(Cr.) No.221/2021 challenging their illegal detention, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 26.06.2023, holding violation of their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution and awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- each. Thereafter, the police moved an application dated 23.01.2024 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate seeking permission to submit an Istighasa under Section 403 IPC, stating that no FIR had been registered, and such permission was granted on 27.01.2024, pursuant to which the impugned Istighasa was submitted. The petitioner contends that the Istighasa is based merely on suspicion and non-production of documents and that the material collected does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 403 IPC. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has not yet taken cognizance of the alleged offence and no charges have been framed against the petitioner.

#4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 4 impugned Istighasa filed under Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code is wholly impermissible in law and does not conform to the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is contended that no First Information Report under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was registered in the present case and, consequently, no final report/charge-sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted pursuant to any lawful investigation. According to learned counsel, the police, having failed to collect any material disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, cannot circumvent the statutory procedure by filing an Istighasa for initiating criminal proceedings. It is further submitted that the impugned Istighasa does not disclose the essential ingredients of Section 403 IPC, as it does not specify the movable property allegedly misappropriated by the petitioner, nor does it establish as to whom the alleged property belonged. None of the industrial establishments approached by the police claimed ownership of the seized scrap or reported its theft, and therefore, there is no material to establish dishonest misappropriation by the petitioner.

#5. He would further submits that the impugned Istighasa is an outcome of the earlier proceedings in W.P.(Cr.) No.221/2021, wherein this Court had held the detention of the petitioner and Mukesh Kumar Sahu to be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution and had awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- 5 each. It is argued that the subsequent filing of the Istighasa, despite absence of any complaint, ownership claim or substantive evidence, reflects mala fide exercise of police powers and amounts to harassment of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that continuation of Criminal Case No.251/2024 would serve no useful purpose, as even if the allegations contained in the Istighasa are taken at their face value, the basic ingredients of Section 403 IPC are not made out. The entire proceeding is therefore liable to be quashed to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice.

#6. Learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the petitioner and co-accused were found transporting industrial scrap of doubtful origin and failed to produce any document establishing its lawful ownership or possession. It is contended that, on the basis of the material collected during inquiry, the Istighasa under Section 403 IPC was submitted before the learned Magistrate after obtaining due permission, and therefore, no interference is warranted at this stage. However, in spite of the time granted to the learned State counsel, no reply has been filed controverting the averments made in the petition.

#7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

#8. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for 6 the parties and upon perusal of the impugned Istighasa, we find that the allegations against the petitioner are primarily founded upon the fact that he was found in a mini-truck carrying industrial scrap and that he failed to produce documents establishing the ownership thereof. However, there is no material on record to establish as to whom the seized scrap belonged, nor has any industrial establishment claimed ownership of the said material or lodged any complaint regarding its theft or misappropriation. Thus, the essential ingredients necessary to constitute an offence under Section 403 of the IPC, particularly dishonest misappropriation or conversion of movable property belonging to another person, are conspicuously absent.

#9. It is also significant that no FIR was registered in respect of the alleged offence and the impugned Istighasa has been filed without there being any complainant or identifiable owner of the alleged misappropriated property. Though the learned State counsel has opposed the petition, no reply has been filed controverting the specific averments made by the petitioner, despite opportunity having been granted. In such circumstances, permitting the criminal proceedings to continue against the petitioner, when the basic ingredients of the alleged offence are not disclosed from the material on record, would amount to abuse of the process of law.

#10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned Istighasa No.01-A/2024 and the 7 consequential proceedings in Criminal Case No.251/2024 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba, insofar as they relate to the petitioner, cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned Istighasa No.01-A/2024 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioner in Criminal Case No.251/2024 are hereby quashed.

#11. It is made clear that this order shall not affect the proceedings, if any, against the co-accused. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok