Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.04.03 16:38:03 +0530 2025:CGHC:15598-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1164 of 2025 Saurabh Kumar Chandrakar S/o Ashok Kumar Chandrakar Aged About 32 Years R/o Chandrakar Para, Mokhala, P.S. Arang Raipur (C.G.) (As Per Correct Details) versus ... Petitioner State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Arang, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Y.C. Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Aishwary Diwan, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, Shri Arvind Kumar Verma Chief Justice , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 03.04.2025 1. Heard Mr. Y.C. Sharma, learned Senior counsel with Mr. Aishwary Diwan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent. 2 2. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘B.N.S.S.’) by the petitioner with the following prayers:- “1. The F.I.R. No. 498/2023 dated 16/08/2023, registered at Police Station- Arang, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence U/s- 6, 7 and 8 of Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022. 2. The Chargesheet No.570/2023 dated 11/12/2023 filed before the Court of Learned GJM, District- Raipur (C.G.), for the offence U/s- 6, 7 and 8 of Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022 arising out of crime no. 498/2023. 3. The Cognizance order dated 22/12/2023, taken by the Court of Learned
Facts
Judicial Magistrate First Class Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in a Criminal Case No. 22595/2023 for the offence U/s- 6, 7 and 8 of Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022 with all the consequential proceedings in a criminal case no.22595/2023 Against the petitioners, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the Police Station, Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) had registered an F.I.R bearing No.498/2023 on 16.08.2023 against the present petitioner and another and after due 3 investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, (C.G) for the offences punishable under Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022 against the petitioner and another.
Legal Reasoning
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 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of the B.N.S.S.). 5 8. In the well celebrated judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 605, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that those guidelines should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. 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 officers 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. 6 (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 officer 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 no prudent person can every reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient 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 efficacious 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 7 ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 9. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Supreme Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. However, it was held that if the allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed. 10. In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 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 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 of the Cr.P.C. (now 8 528 of the B.N.S.S.) 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 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of B.N.S.S.), 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 merit. Further, while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (now 528 of B.N.S.S.) , final conclusions are as under:- “i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevantprovisions 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 9 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; 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; 10 xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; 11 xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be 12 applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or “no coercive steps to be adopted” and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or “no coercive steps” either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under 13 Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/ disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order. xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of “no coercive steps to be adopted” within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by “no coercive steps to be adopted” 14 as the term “no coercive steps to be adopted” can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied.” 11. Keeping in view the aforesaid law and considering the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the submissions raised by learned counsel for petitioner relate to the questions of fact, and thus, can not be examined by this Court in proceedings under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. The appreciation of evidence or the reliability of the allegations cannot be examined at this stage. 12. From perusal of the charge-sheet, it transpires that the present petitioner is stated to be absconded. On 16.08.2023 at about 20.30 hrs., HM 867 had left for raid action on illegal gambling in town and at the bus stand in Arang, information was received from an informer that a person, sitting on an electric scooter bearing registration No. CG 03 NT 8274, under the electricity pole of Indira Chowk, near Machhli Pasara, was making people play online gambling by betting money on numbers through mobile. Upon receiving the said information, notice under Section 160 of the Cr.P.C. was given to witnesses Sahdev Ratre of village Rasni and Dilip Sahu of village Akolikala, and after informing them about the informer's information, the area was cordoned off and raid action was conducted. Accused Anish Chandrakar resident of Bodra Police Station Arang, who was making people play online betting, 15 was interrogated and confessed to the crime in his memorandum and absconding accused Saurabh Chandrakar of village Mokhla Police Station Arang has given a Diamond Company ID and a mobile with Apple 14 Pro model for online betting in Rohtak, Haryana, in which both of them together play online betting by betting money on online betting numbers. An Apple Company mobile and a scooter bearing registration No. CG 04 NT 8274 were duly seized from the accused and taken into police custody. The accused was arrested under Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling Prohibition Act 2022. 13. From the above stated case laws, it is apparent that the above stated contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner can not be examined by this Court. The adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. In view of the material on record, it can not be held that the impugned criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge. FIR or criminal proceedings can be quashed only in accordance with parameters laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions. 14. The Courts should oust and obstruct unscrupulous litigants from invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the Court on the drop of a hat to file an application for quashing of launching an FIR or investigation and 16 then seek relief by an interim order. It is the obligation of the Court to keep such unprincipled and unethical litigants at bay. It is intellectual truancy to avoid the precedents and issue directions which are not in consonance with law. It is the duty of a Judge to sustain the judicial balance and not to think of an order which can cause trauma to the process of adjudication. It should be borne in mind that the culture of adjudication is stabilised when intellectual discipline is maintained and further when such discipline constantly keeps guard on the mind. 15. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly from the perusal of the FIR as well as charge-sheet as also the order taking cognizance, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Further considering the fact that present petitioner was involved in the aforesaid offence by using different IDs' as also involved in online gaming through the Diamond Company, as such, the present petition does not fall in any of such category, wherein, this Court can exercise jurisdiction to quash the impugned FIR as well as further proceedings. 16. In view of the aforesaid, the petition lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed. 17. The instant Cr.M.P. filed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu
Arguments
4. Mr. Y.C. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Aishwary Diwan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the case and he has not having any kind of involvement in commission of the alleged offences and is never being involved in alleged offences. He further submits that the investigation in the matter has been concluded and charge-sheet has been filed by the prosecution and the only substance against the petitioner is that he has been implicated on the alleged memorandum statement of the main accused, which is in admissible in evidence and no other evidences has been tendered by the prosecution. It has been contended that the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned trial Court. It has been further contended that the mobile phone and one vehicle has been seized from the possession of the main accused, which is also registered in the name of main accused namely Anish Chandrakar, which shows no linkage/connection of the present petitioner in the aforesaid crime. It has been submitted that the present petitioner was residing at Rohtak, Haryana and the offences punishable under Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022 against the petitioner is not made out as neither any recovery has to be affected nor the petitioner is in apposition to tamper with any 4 evidence and no purpose would be served from the arrest of the petitioner as well as the petitioner is not having any other criminal antecedents, as such, the impugned FIR as well as charge-sheet and order taking cognizance be quashed. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the FIR, charge-sheet as well as order taking cognizance disclose the cognizable offence against the petitioner. He further submits that the the allegation against the present petitioner is that the petitioner is involved in the aforesaid offence by using different IDs' and involved in online gaming through the Diamond Company and as such, no interference is called for. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 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