Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:14007-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1002 of 2025 Ranjeet Kumar Banjare S/o Shri Sadhuram Banjare Aged About 38 Years Occupation Service, Working As R H O, Section Budhikhar, Sector Malhar, Masturi District Bilaspur, R/o Village Arjuni, Police Station Akaltara, Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. Mob. No. 6261947168 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Akaltara, Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2. Suresh Kumar Sahu S/o Late Bharat Lal Sahu Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Rasera, Police Station Akaltara, Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. Mob. No. 9303762198 ...Respondent(s) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.03.25 17:00:13 +0530 For Petitioner For Respondent/State : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Shubham Dewangan, Advocate. Mr. Swajeet Ubeja, Panel Lawyer. 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Decision
Order on Board 24.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shubham Dewangan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Swajeet Ubeja, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent No. 1/State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “1. allow this application, 2. May kindly be quash the charge-sheet of Crime No. 487 of 2023 and also quash the cognizance taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) on 22.03.2024 as well as further proceeding of Criminal Case No. 327 of 2024 pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) further be pleased to quash the First Information Report, No. 0487 of 2023, registered at Police Station Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) on 29.09.2023 for the offence punishable under Section 435 of the IPC and the petitioner be discharged from the charges punishable under Section 435 of the IPC, in the interest of justice.” 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 27.09.2023, the petitioner had made an application before the Police Station City Kotwali, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), alleging therein that the respondent No. 2 had threatened him that he will implicate the petitioner in false case on account of some cash/loan transaction. Thereafter, on 29.09.2023, the respondent No. 2 made an application before the Police Station Akaltara, alleging therein that in the night of 28.09.2023 at 2.30 a.m., unknown three persons who had totally covered their faces, burn his motorcycle bearing No. CG 11 BE 1323 kept in courtyard by pouring petrol and fled away from the spot. The respondent No. 2 had requested to Police to register the report against the present petitioner along with his companions. Based on the complaint, the Police had lodged the FIR under Crime No. 487 of 2023 on 29.09.2023 against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 435 of the IPC in violation of the provisions prescribed under the relevant law. He also submits that after completion of investigation, Police of the P.S. Akaltara, Janjgir-Champa has submitted the final report/charge-sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the written report submitted by the respondent No. 2, the persons who had poured the petrol on his motorcycle were completely covered their faces. He also submits that on one hand the complainant himself admitted that the persons had covered their faces, but on the other side, he mentioned the name of present petitioner in his complaint. He would submit that according to the respondent No. 2, the petitioner had poured the petrol and burned his motorcycle on 28.09.20223 at 2.30 a.m., but the 4 petitioner was present in the house of one, Chain Singh Joshi and attending the Dasgatra of his daughter, Ku. Shreya Joshi. He further contended that the petitioner is presently working as RHO, Section Budhikhar, Sector Malhar, Masturi District Bilaspur and if the alleged FIR is not quashed then his service career would be ruined. The respondent No. 2 has lodged the FIR only to teach the lesson and implicate the petitioner in a false case. Hence, this petition. 5. 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. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. 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. 5 8. In the present case, 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. 9. From perusal of the FIR and charge-sheet, it transpires that respondent No. 2/complainant/Suresh Kumar Sahu, resident of Rasera, Akaltara Police Station, Janjgir-Champa District, has stated that he owns a motorcycle, CG-11-BE-1323. On the night of September 28-29, 2023, around 2:30 am, his wife, Geetanjali Sahu, and their children saw four individuals, including Ranjit Banjare, wearing white gamchas over their mouths, setting the motorcycle on fire after pouring petrol on it. Upon seeing the family, the individuals fled. About 10 days prior, present petitioner, Ranjit Banjare had visited the complainant's house, abused them, and threatened to damage their property. During the investigation, the damaged motorcycle was inspected, photographed, and witnesses were questioned. The accused, Ranjit Banjare, admitted to set the motorcycle on fire due to an old rivalry, therefore, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Hence, the present petition does not fall in any of such category, wherein, this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. 10. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan