Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:12830-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 599 of 2025 1 - Taranpal Singh Nayyar S/o Jaspal Singh Nayyar, Aged About 32 Years, Occupation Proprietor Auto Deal R/o Bodjhad Chowk, Beside Nilu Tailor, Shyam Nagar Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) versus ... Petitioner 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Mahila Police Station District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Ravneet Kaur W/o Taranpal Singh Nayyar, Aged About 34 Years, R/o 25 Shreeji Kalptaru Society, Hamlidih Raipur Rajendra Nagar Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) (Complainant) ... Respondents
Legal Reasoning
For Petitioner For State For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate. : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 18-03-2025 1. The present petition has been filed with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this application and quash The Chargesheet of crime no. 78/2024 registered under section 498-A of IPC at Mahila Thana Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (ANNEXURE P/1) Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 and also quashing of the cognizance taken by the learned judicial magistrate first class Raipur district Raipur (C.G.) on 30.09.2024 in criminal case no. 17658/2024 as well as the further proceedings of criminal case No. 17658/2024 (ANNEXURE P/2) for an offence u/s 498-a of IPC pending before the court of learned judicial magistrate first class Raipur District Raipur (C.G.), in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case as mentioned in the petition are that petitioner and the respondent no. 2 are known to each other since 2016-17 and then with the consent of both the family members, marriage has taken place on 04.09.2022 as per their customs. After the marriage, the petitioner visited several places along with respondent no. 2 and they have also got the tickets scheduled for the Andaman & Nicobar Islands and they had bookings for Tadoba National Park. As such, there was no dispute between the parties, but subsequently, respondent No. 2 advised the petitioner to make up their mind to leave his parents and start to reside along with respondent No. 2 (wife), but the petitioner who is the only son of his father and mother did not agree with the aforesaid proposal of the respondent No. 2, then the respondent No. 2 left the house of the petitioner and went to the house of her parents on 25.10.2023. On 09.03.2023, respondent No.2 demanded one mobile phone worth Rs.1,50,000/-, but the petitioner has provided a new mobile phone to her, which is worth less than Rs.1,50,000/-. Thereafter, she made several demands which the petitioner could not fulfill and she got annoyed with the petitioner and started to misbehave with his parents. 3 On 25.10.2023 when her mother and father came to the house of the petitioner, she went to her maternal house and reside with her parents (Father and Mother). The father and mother of respondent No. 2 threatened the petitioner and his family members for dire consequences and threatened them to implicate in false and frivolous criminal case. In view of the aforesaid threat, the petitioner has informed the Superintendent of Police Bilaspur on 30.12.2023 about the aforesaid incident, but the police has not taken any action. Again on, 13.01.2024, he made a complaint before the Superintendent of Police and another complaint on 06.02.2024, but the police did not register FIR and only registered a complaint Under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the complainant with the help of her legal advisor made a written complaint at Police Station Mahila Thana Raipur (C.G.), in which she has not only falsely implicated the mother and father of the applicant/petitioner, but also the sister and sister-in-law of the petitioner and made allegation of unnatural sex with the complainant. Thereafter, some counselling process has been initiated and during the course of preliminary inquiry, statements of the witnesses have been recorded and the police has seized the tour program of the petitioner and respondent No. 2 as also seized the photographs, but for the very purpose to implicate the petitioner without find anything against the petitioner and the other family members, though offence under Section 377 of the IPC was not registered against the petitioner and also not registered any offence against his father, mother, sister and 4 sister-in-law, but, on the basis of the vague grounds, Police registered the offence under Section 498-A of IPC against the applicant/petitioner in connection with Crime No.78/2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been granted bail by this Court. The complainant in order to harass the petitioner has lodged the false complaint on 17-05-2024 whereas her allegations of cruelty and torture are of the period from September, 2022 till June, 2023, and during that time she did not chose to lodge any complaint. The applicant never demanded any kind of dowry from the complainant rather he spent a lot of money upon the complainant. There in no material in the charge sheet against the petitioner for the offence alleged. Therefore, the petition may be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2/complaint opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that there is sufficient material against the petitioner and the petition is liable be dismissed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. In M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 23 held as under :-
Decision
“23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or “no coercive steps to be adopted”, during 5 the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during the investigation or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under: i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere; 6 ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;” 7. In the present petition the matter was sent for mediation and as per report of Mediation Center of this Court, the mediation proceeding is failed. There are allegations of cruelty and demand of dowry against the petitioner. The appreciation of evidence or the reliability of the allegations cannot be examined at this stage. Further, considering the fact that the prosecution should not be thrown at the initial stage and the allegations made against the petitioner are subject to evidence before the trial Court and taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment cited above, we do not find any good ground to interfere in matter. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil