Santosh Kumar Sahu S/o Punni Ram Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Jharna v. 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Thana Incharge/sho, Nagarda, Tahsil and District Sakti
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:10685-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 804 of 2025 Santosh Kumar Sahu S/o Punni Ram Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Jharna, Police Station Nagarda, District- Sakti (C.G.) (Accused) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Thana Incharge/sho, Nagarda, Tahsil and District Sakti (C.G.) 2.
Legal Reasoning
Smt. Punam Sahu W/o Chhatram Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Jharna, Police Station Nagarda, District- Sakti (C.G.) (Complainant) ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner For Respondent/State : : Ms. Gunjan Tiwari and Mr. Sandeep Jha, Advocates. Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Decision
Order on Board 05.03.2025 BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.03.05 17:44:28 +0530 1. Heard Ms. Gunjan Tiwari and Mr. Sandeep Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for respondent No. 1/State. 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the impugned first information report (0153/2023), set-aside the charge-sheet and also quash the cognizance order dated 12.08.2024 & entire criminal proceedings/initiated against the petitioner pursuant to impugned first information report (0153/2023 dated 23.11.2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 354(D), 452, 294, 506 and 323 registered at P.S. Nagarda, District Sakti (C.G.), in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 29.09.2023 at about 5:30 a.m. when the victim/respondent No. 2 went to the garden with her mobile, her brother-in-law/petitioner was walking on the terrace. The petitioner followed the victim in garden. The victim got frightened and went to the bathroom in the courtyard and closed the curtain, but her brother-in-law/petitioner removed the curtain without her permission and entered the bathroom and started doing obscene acts. The victim shouted and due to this shout her sister-in-law named as Babita Sahu/wife of petitioner came there and saw the matter, then she asked her husband/ petitioner why he came here then petitioner said that the molestation video of 25th May 2023 is on his sister-in-law/victim mobile and he has come to delete it and then he twisted her hands and victim’s sister-in-law/ petitioner's wife snatched her mobile phone and slapped her for not telling 3 the password of her mobile. At the same time, victim’s mother-in-law and father-in-law also committed marpeet with her with slippers, saying that she had defamed them. Thereafter, the victim/respondent No. 2 lodged the FIR bearing Crime No. 153 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 452, 294, 506, 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the present petitioner and in-laws and during investigation offence under Section 354(D) of the IPC has been added in the same FIR & due to which the learned trial Court had passed the cognizance order dated 12.08.2024 and given the date of 05.10.2024 to argue the matter before charge and till date no charges have been framed against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 0153 of 2023 dated 23.11.2023 and charge-sheet bearing No. 162 of 2024 dated 08.08.2024 filed against the petitioner is baseless, frivolous and deserves to be quashed. She also submits that the FIR bearing Crime No. 153 of 2023 had been registered after the span of 02 months i.e. on 23.11.2023, but the occurrence of offence is of dated 29.09.2023. 5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the victim/respondent No. 2 and petitioner belong to the same family and there was a dispute regarding the agricultural land between the petitioner and his family with the victim and her husband, for which the false and fabricated criminal case was registered and a civil dispute of agricultural land was given a colour of criminal nature under the above said sections, which is non-bailable in nature. She also submits that the victim/respondent No. 2 had also lodged another FIR bearing Crime No. 50 of 2023 dated 25.05.2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 4 354 and 509 of the IPC against the petitioner in which the learned trial Court has passed the cognizance order dated 05.06.2023 and in Criminal Case No. 639 of 2023, the statement of victim/respondent No. 2 has been recorded. It is admitted by the victim/respondent No. 2 that due to some property dispute, she lodged the FIR bearing Crime No. 50 of 2023. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the in-laws of the victim/respondent No. 2 and parents of the present petitioner also challenged the FIR bearing Crime No. 153 of 2023, charge-sheet and order taking cognizance, which was disposed off by this Court vide order dated 04.02.2025 in CRMP No. 430 of 2025, wherein this Court in paragraph 7 held that “7. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the trial of the present case is in progress and the evidence of the private respondent has already been recorded before learned trial Court. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and further considering the fact that the trial is in progress, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter at his belated stage, however, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.” She further states that in the said case evidence of respondent No. 2/victim is not recorded and she filed the application for correction of the said sentence. Hence, this petition. 7. On the other, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the investigation has been done strictly in accordance with law and after completion of investigation the final report/charge-sheet has been filed before the trial Court and the learned trial Court had already taken the cognizance and the trial is in progress. 5 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 9. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge- sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS. 10. From the perusal of impugned charge-sheet, it transpires that initially FIR has been registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 452, 294, 506, 323 of the IPC and during the course of investigation, offence under Section 354(D) of the IPC has been added against the petitioner, and admittedly, after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner and the learned trial Court has taken cognizance of the evidences and upon finding prima facie evidence regarding commission of offences the trial has been initiated against the petitioner. Hence, the present petition does not fall in any of such category, wherein, this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. 11. In view of the above, we do not find it a fit case to quash the FIR bearing Crime No. 153 of 2023 dated 23.11.2023, charge-sheet No. 162 6 of 2024 dated 09.08.2024 filed by the Police Station Nagarda, District Sakti (C.G.) and the order taking cognizance dated 12.08.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354(D), 452, 294, 506 and 323 of the IPC and the consequential criminal proceedings bearing Criminal Case No. 847 of 2024 pending before the trial Court, as such, this petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan