Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:16153-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1217 of 2025 Rajeev Kumar Saraf S/o Shri Pratapchand Saraf Aged About 42 Years R/o Station Road, Champa, Police Station Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2. Mohammad Shabbir Alam Sheikh S/o Moh. Sammi Sheikh Aged About 51 Years R/o Behind Loins Higher Secondary School, Infront Of Maruti Vihar Gate, Warsi Manzil, Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner For Respondent/State : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate. Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Decision
Order on Board 07.04.2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. Heard Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.04.11 12:13:13 +0530 2 Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent No. 1/State. 3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow the application by making an order to quash the Crime No. 286 of 2020 dated 03.11.2020 offence under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC & quash the final report dated 17.12.2020 and also quash the entire criminal proceeding pending before JMFC Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) as Criminal Case No. 317 of 2020 offence under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC and discharge from the case to the applicant.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the FIR bearing Crime No. 286 of 2020 dated 03.11.2020 registered at Police Station Champa, District Janjgir-Champa was lodged by the complainant/respondent No. 2 with the allegation that about eight years back a transaction took place of Rupees Eighteen lakhs Fifty Thousand between the petitioner and complainant and about seven years after the so called transaction, complainant had approached petitioner for an signed agreement along with undertaking on 21.05.2019, however, petitioner has provided two cheques of Rupees Twelve lakhs and Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand without mentioning any date on aforesaid cheques at the time of so-called transaction in 2012, complainant has declared himself as a Contractor 3 and having a family relationship with the petitioner and his family members although complainant has presented security cheque number 374192 of State Bank of India with an amount of Rupees Twelve lakhs and cheque number 008512 of Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand in his respective bank account for clearing purpose on 17.07.2020 in accordance with the breach of terms as mentioned in agreement and the undertaking as mentioned in agreement and the undertaking signed by petitioner which has been returned by the payee bank with the memo which has not been mentioned any where in the information application of complainant. The Police has lodged above mentioned FIR based upon the information application of complainant sent to SP Janjgir-Champa and I.G. Bilaspur range with malafide intention to harass the family of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Police has stated in the FIR bearing Crime No. 286 of 2020 that after the deposit of cheque number 374192 with an amount of Rupees Twelve Lakhs of State Bank of India account number 30162812834 and cheque number 008512 with an amount of Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand of IDBI Bank account number 12121022000000912 by the informant in their respective bank account number 10722903969 in State Bank of India on 17/07/2020 and 18/07/2020 which had been returned by the paying with a memo “signature mismatched” in the cheque number 374192 of SBI and memo “Account closed” by IDBI Bank in the cheque number 008512 while it is clearly mentioned in the memo and enquiry made out by investigating ofÏcer with concern Bank that cheque number 008512 has been returned due to reason “Account Blocked” although there is a huge difference between “Account closed” which cannot be denied subsequently. 4 6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the course of investigation and statement recorded by investigating ofÏcer in FIR bearing Crime No. 286 of 2020 from the father of petitioner as well as proprietor of M/s. Pratap Electronics named Mr. Pratap Chand Saraf in which father of petitioner has clearly mentioned that be provided some self-signed cheques in his shop named Pratap Electronics under the custody of petitioner, who used the same signed cheques for business transactions whenever it require, however, he has also mentioned that he has never given any cheque to the complainant directly. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the charge-sheet has already been submitted against the petitioner before the learned trial Court on 17.12.2020 and thereafter, the petitioner had filed a discharge application under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C before the learned trial Court, which is pending disposal because prosecution has not filed any reply/objection to the discharge application, which is evident from the order-sheets of the learned trial Court. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel does not controvert the above submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the next date fixed before the learned trial Court for framing of charges on 23.04.2025. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case that the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court and the trial is in progress and further discharge application of the petitioner is also pending for disposal, therefore, at this stage, we are not 5 inclined to interfere with the matter. However, the trial Court is directed to decide the application under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C of the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the receipt of a certified copy of this order, in accordance with law, if the same is already not been decided. 10. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed off. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan