Raipur, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Golebazar, District
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:39777 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 344 of 2023 Arjun Das Vaswani S/o Shri Late Ghanshyam Das Vaswani Aged About 56 Years R/o Vaswani Niketan Punjabi Colony, Katora Talab Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Golebazar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Vimal Jain S/o Late Maniklal Jain Aged About 69 Years R/o 22 B, South Avenue Choubey Colony Raipur Tahsil And District- Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) For Respondent No. 1/State For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Manoj Kumar Dubey, Advocate. : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer : Mr. Pushp Kumar Gupta, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 08/08/2025 1
Legal Reasoning
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 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 12 In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others {2021 SCC OnLine SC 315}, the Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an 6 FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the FIR in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations of FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merits. 13 In a well-celebrated judgment in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, {1992 Supp (1) SCC 335} the Apex Court held that those guidelines should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The guidelines are as follows: “(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety to do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police ofÏcers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 156(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police ofÏcer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which 7 no prudent person can every reach a just conclusion that there is sufÏcient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efÏcacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 14 The allegation of the respondent No. 2/Vimal Jain is that the petitioner had filed a criminal complaint before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur alleging that the petitioner had threatened the respondent/complainant for payment of Rs. 2,87,00,000/- and lodged a false complaint against him upon which the Police of Police Station, Gol Bazar had lodged an offence bearing Crime No. 320/2017 for the offences under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC on 08.10.2017 against the complainant and his sons Vaibhav Jain and Varun Jain. After registration of the said offence, the petitioner extorted a sum of Rs. 50 Lacs from the respondent/complainant on the name of withdrawing the said case and also threatened that if he does not pay the said amount, his sons would be done to death. However,later, after investigation, closure report was filed and the matter was closed. According to the complainant/respondent No. 2, the petitioner had prepared forged bank statements and lodged the false FIR against him and ruined his image amongst the business community. According to the respondent No. 2/complainant, the matter was reported to the police, however, the petitioner being an influential person, no offence was registered against 8 him and as such, he had to file complaint under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. upon which the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, has taken cognizance of the matter and directed registration of the FIR. 15 From perusal of the complaint filed by the respondent No. 2/complainant which is the basis of the FIR against the petitioner herein, it transpires that the petitioner had pressurized them to pay a sum of Rs. 50 Lacs and then only the petitioner would take back his FIR, and accordingly the respondent/complainant had paid that amount also. Had it been a case that the petitioner was falsely pressurizing the respondent/complainant to pay such a huge amount, he could have taken recourse to law by filing application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. in case the police was not registering any offence against the petitioner. It appears that the there exists some dispute in relation to their business transactions and only after filing of the closure report by the police in respect of the FIR lodged by the petitioner, the complainant/respondent No. 2 has filed the complaint under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. 16 Earlier, the respondent No. 2/complainant had also filed a petition being WPCr No. 508/2017 wherein he had challenged the FIR bearing Crime No. 320/2017 lodged by the petitioner herein against him which was dismissed vide order dated 21.10.2019 by a learned Single Judge. A bare perusal of the said order shows that the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 were indulged in various business transactions. 17 From perusal of the materials available on record, it is evident that the act of the respondent No.2/complainant falls under clause (7) of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lal (supra) and as such, the FIR bearing Crime No. 0034/2023, registered at Police Station, Gol Bazar, District Raipur, for the offences under Section 211, 294, 34, 384, 9 420, and 506 of the IPC stands quashed. However, the respondent No. 2/ complainant is at liberty to take recourse to civil remedies that may be available to him, under the law, if so desired. 18 The petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.08.11 16:57:33 +0530
Arguments
Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. Pushp Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2 By this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s): 2 “(1) Till final disposal of the petition the respondent No.1 be restrained to take any coercive action against the petitioner. (2) Annexure P-1 FIR registered against the petitioner kindly be quashed. (3) Call for the case dairy for proper adjudication of the case. (4) If Any other relief which may be deemed fit in favour of the petitioner kindly be passed by this Hon'ble court, in the interest of justice.” 3 According to the petitioner, an FIR bearing Crime No. 0034/2023 was registered against the petitioner and one Anil Nachrani by the Police of Police Station, Gol Bazar, District Raipur, for the offences under Sections 211, 294, 34, 384, 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of an order dated 13.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, on an application filed under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. on 30.01.2023. Both the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 belong to business community. The complainant namely Vimal Jain has a firm in the name and style of Vimal Construction and he is promoter and builder of Ravi Bhawan situated at Jai Stambh Chowk Raipur whereas the petitioner has a firm namely Surya Mobile in the complex of Ravi Bhawan itself. Therefore they both are known to each other. On 08/10/2017 a criminal complaint No.320/2017 under section 420/34 of IPC was registered against respondent No. 2 and his son in relation to the transaction of about Rs. 2,87,00,000/-. In connection with FIR No. 320/2017, respondent No. 2 and his son filed a petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the above action of Gole Bazar Police and the same was registered as W.P. (CR.) No.508/2017 which had been decided on 21/10/2019 and W.P. (CR.) No.508/2017 was found without any substance or merit hence it was dismissed. 4 Mr. Manoj Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from perusal of the order dated 21.10.2019 passed in WPCr. No. 3 508/2017 and connected matters, it is apparent that the petitioner and the respondent No.2 were indulged in various business transaction situated at Ravi Bhawan Raipur for which the petitioner has advanced Rs. 2,87,00,000/- and for the safety of that amount Shri Vimal Jain had executed various documents in favour of the petitioner. Ultimately it was found that the shops for which the amount were received by Vimal Jain from the petitioner, those were already been mortgaged with some financial institutions which was not disclosed by Vimal Jain to the petitioner and as per business guidelines and terms the petitioner had given the money to Shri Vimal Jain on his assurance since both belonged to the reputed business family in Raipur City. 5 According to Mr. Dubey, from above narration of facts and events, for making confidence in the minds of petitioner with respect to security of his money given to Shri Vimal Kumar Jain, his daughter Smt Varsha Jain had executed General Power of Attorney for two year with respect to their properties in favour of the petitioner. Since the above documents were executed in favour of petitioner by Shri Vimal Jain and his family member only a security of the amount advanced by petitioner to Shri Vimal Jain therefore with all fairness and maintaining the morals of business, the petitioner never used those documents in his favour. However, after the lapse of two years also Shri Vimal Jain neglected the re-payment of the amount received by him from the petitioner and since the petitioner was regularly insisting upon the repayment of advance money therefore only with ill-will and mens-rea to misappropriate the above amount and for making undue pressure on the petitioner the criminal complaint was falsely presented before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur and using the influential position in the market as well as the political influence on a false complaint the crime 4 has been registered against the petitioner. The dispute between the parties are initially born out of the business transaction between the two and with the object of avoiding the civil liabilities towards the petitioner a false complaint has been lodged against the petitioner so that his reputation in business circle can be ruined and the liabilities of about Rs. 2,85,00,000/- can be settled without paying any single penny to the petitioner. From perusal of the FIR itself, it will be clearthat the allegation made herein in the FIR are related with the business transaction and the civil remedies are always open in these type of commercial dispute between the parties and to resolve their business dispute at any time the shelter of criminal court can not be taken by any party. Since the FIR is lodged by the complainant with malice in mind without any substance that to on the basis of a forged and fabricated allegation made by the respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 the above FIR is liable to be quashed. 6 On the other hand, Mr. Soumya Rai, learend Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 submits that the FIR has been lodged against the petitioner as there was a direction by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, on an application filed under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. by the respondent No. 2 and the matter is still to be investigated. 7 Mr. B.P.Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/complainant submits that the FIR has been registered as per the directions of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur on the complaint filed by the complainant under Section 156(3) and as such, till the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 13.01.2023 is not challenged, the FIR cannot be quashed. 5 8 9 We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. On a pointed query being made by this Court to the learned State counsel with respect to the status of the investigation, it is informed by Mr. Rai that the investigation is still pending. 10 So far as the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/complainant is concerned, after passing of the order by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur on the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the police has executed the order dated 13.01.2023 and registered the FIR against the petitioner and as such, no fruitful purpose would be served by challenging the order dated 13.01.2023. Hence, the said objection is noticed to be rejected. 11 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