Nafr High Court
Case Details
MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.03.26 19:24:34 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:14427-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1085 of 2025 1 - Ashok Chaturvedi S/o Harivansh Chaturvedi Aged About 54 Years Joint Commissioner (Presently Under Suspension), Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Jyoti Chaturvedi W/o- Dr. Ashok Chaturvedi Aged About 51 Years Presently Working As Headmaster, Late Motilal Tripathi Govt New Primary School, Ramkund, Block- Dharsiwa, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, Home Department, Atal Nagar, Raipur, (C.G.) 2 - Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter, Chhattisgarh, Nava Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 492001 3 - Additional Director General Of Police Economic Offense Wing And Anti Corruption Bureau, Chhattisgarh, Jai Jawan Petrol Pump Telibandha Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 492001 4 - Superintendent Of Police Economic Offense Wing, Chhattisgarh, Jai Jawan Petrol Pump Telibandha Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 492001 5 - Investigation Officer In Crime Number 16/2020, Police Station- Economic Offence Wing, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
17(a) of the prevention of Corruption act, 2018. Prima facie, the entire action of the State Government by the then regime is the best example of political victimization time and again Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued guidelines that an officer should not be treated for political bias until and unless there is a strong reason and belief against the same. The entire final report appears to be a case of malicious prosecution against the Petitioner no 1 with an oblique for personal vengeance. The FIR appears to have been registered with only intention to rope an officer who could not place himself in the good books of the old regime Because, the action of the respondent State in lodging criminal cases one after another without there being principles following of the natural justice and in a haste goes to show that the then regime was hell bent to punish the Petitioner no 1 for reasons best known to them. The approach of the State and manner in proceeding with the multiple FIRs shows that there was no prima facie material where allegations were levelled. There is no explanation in the entire final report whatsoever as to how an officer of Class-I would be interested in petty tender matter to his relative and demanded the money into his son's bank accounts. The Hon'ble Apex Court in "State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal" (1992) Supp. (1) SCC 335 has observed in paragraph 60, 76, 102 (7) that where a criminal 5 proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide investigation in breach of statutory provision and or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to split him due to private and personal grudge, the inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be exercised. 5. Learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State opposes the submissions and prayer made by the petitioner and submits that in the present matter, charge-sheet has already been filed and the charges are yet to be framed and it has to be investigated and taken to its logical end. He further submits that bare perusal of charge-sheet goes to show commission of cognizable offence on the part of the petitioners. Further, petitioner has 03 previous criminal antecedents registered out of which, in two of the cases, charge-sheet has been filed and in one case, charge-sheet is yet to be filed, which itself shows that the petitioner is a habitual offender and his case is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that the reliance placed on the decision of this Court in Gurjinder Pal Singh (supra) is of no assistance to the petitioners as the facts and issue involved in that case is totally different. Both the cases stand on totally different footing. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 7. From perusal of the materials available on record, it transpires 6 that the allegation against the petitioners is that total salary of the petitioner No. 1 from 03/03/2001 to 31/12/2019 comes to Rs. 68,89,344/- and that of Petitioner No. 1's wife has been stated to be Rs. 23,60,845/- and they own properties valued at Rs. 1,65,82,400/- and have given the details of 6 properties owned by the couple. Out of these 6 properties, one of the property situated at village Tendua, Tehsil Nawagarh has been estimated to be of Rs. 1,10,00,000 (30,00,000 for the land and 80,00,000 for the alleged development). Further, the petitioner No.1 has invested Rs.22,31,047/- in the insurance policies and has invested Rs.5,50,000/- in miscellaneous expenses. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are grave in nature. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties that the charge-sheet has already been filed and perusal of the F.I.R. discloses commission of a cognizable offence on the part of the petitioners and further, there are three pervious criminal antecedents pending against the petitioners. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision rendered by this Court in Gurjinder Pal Singh (supra) is not applicable to this case as the facts in Gurjinder Pal Singh, though one of the allegation was with regard to accumulation of disproportionate assets, however, this Court had observed the FIRs registered against Gurjinder Pal Singh to be an outcome of political vengeance which was registered immediately after change of regime in the State. The facts in the said case is totally 7 different from the present one and as such, the same can be of no assistance to the petitioners. No good ground has been raised for interference in the matter for quash the charge-sheet at this stage as the investigation has to be brought to its logical end. 9. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this petition. The petition lacks merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet
Arguments
: Mr. Ashutosh Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. 2 Hon'ble Shri Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Chief Justice , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 26.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for the respondents / State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: “A. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities to produce the entire records pertaining to the case of the Petitioners. B. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the final report bearing no. 06/2023 dated 28.08.2023 (Annexure P/1) and all consequent criminal proceedings in the light of justice and equity. C. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may be passed.” 3. Prosecution story in a nutshell is that the Anti Corruption Bureau registered FIR in which it has been stated that the total salary of the Petitioner No. 1 from 03/03/2001 to 31/12/2019 comes to Rs. 68,89,344/- and that of Petitioner No. 1's wife has been stated to be Rs. 23,60,845/-. It is alleged by the respondent agency that the Petitioner No 1. and his wife owns properties valued at Rs 3 1,65,82,400/- and have given the details of 6 properties owned by the couple. Out of these 6 properties, one of the property situated at village Tendua, Tehsil Nawagarh has been estimated to be of Rs. 1,10,00,000 (30,00,000 for the land and 80,00,000 for the alleged development). Further, the petitioner No.1 has invested Rs.22,31,047/- in the insurance policies and has invested Rs.5,50,000/- in miscellaneous expenses. As such, case was registered against the petitioners, in pursuance of which, final report was filed by the Economic Offence Wing bearing no. 06/2023 dated 28.08.2023 under Sections 13 (1) (b) and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended in 2018 and 1 st Additional Sessions Judge against the Petitioners before the Special Judge (PC Act), Raipur registered as Case No. 04/2023. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No. 1 has an unblemished, clean and clear service record under his belt and is ready to face any inquiry/investigation which is initiated against the Petitioner no 1 under the four corners of statutory and constitutional framework however the respondents are proceeding in an unjust, unfair, arbitrary and unconstitutional manner with ulterior and oblique motive. The Petitioner No. 2 was not arrayed as an accused in the F.I.R but later on just to drag the family she has been made accused in the Final Report. Further, this Hon'ble Court in similar facts and circumstances quashed the proceedings in CRMP 1488/2023, CRMP 2747/2023, CRMP 683/2024 4 (Gurjinder Pal Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and others). Further, the entire final report is absolutely without jurisdiction in absence of the valid previous approval granted under section