Heeralal Sen S/o Late Shri Ramgarib Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Semariya Mauganj v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of Home Mahanadi Bhawan Atal
Case Details
1 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.04.04 15:24:06 +0530 2025:CGHC:15602-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1187 of 2025 Heeralal Sen S/o Late Shri Ramgarib Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Semariya Mauganj P.S. Mauganj Dev Talab District Mauganj Madhya Pradesh At Present R/o Ward No. 21, Hasiya Ward Manendragarh P.S. Manendragarh And District - M.C.B. (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of Home Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director General Of Police Police Department New Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Superintendent Of Police M.C.B. District - M.C.B. Chhattisgarh 4 - Station House Officer Police Station Podi District - M.C .B. Chhattisgarh 5 - Ruchika Chakdradhari S/o Ramprasad Chakradhari Aged About 24 Years R/o Sonbarsa Barbaspur Podi District - M.C.B. Chhattisgarh (Complainant ) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Ramsevak Soni, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 03.04.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ramsevak Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents No.1 to 4 / State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: “1. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition under section 528 of B.N.S.S. 2023 filed by the applicant and call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the applicant, in the interest of justice. 2. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR bearing No. 132/2024 registered on dated 19.09.2024 at police station Podi, District M.C.B. Chhattisgarh filed under section 363, 366, 376 (2) (n), 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 04, 06 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences, Act, 2012 at crime no. 132/2024 in the interest of justice. 3. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash entire charge sheet dated 12.11.2024 before learned Upper Sessions Judge F.T.S.C. (POCSO) Manendragarh District Korea Chhattisgarh under section 363, 366, 376 (2) 34 (n), 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 04, 06 of the Protection of Children From Sexual 3 Offences, Act, 2012 in the interest of justice. 4. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash impugned charges framed against the applicant (Annexure P-1) in Special Criminal Case No. 30/2024 against the applicant, in the interest of justice. 5. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly grant any other reliefs in favour of the applicants, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 5. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly grant any other reliefs in favour of the applicants, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3. Prosecution story in a nutshell is that the complainant has made complaint to concerned police station alleging that on date of incident 06.01.2019, the three accused persons have carried the victim on pretext of providing job by their vehicle and moreover, they have committed sexual intercourse with her by threatening and publishing video viral. Based upon the such complaint of the complainant, the police has registered the offence punishable under section 363, 366, 376 (2) (n), 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 04, 06 of the Protection of children From Sexual Offences, Act, 2012 at crime no. 132/2024 against the accused persons and present applicant. The concerned police station has been completed investigation and produced charge-sheet before 4 the learned competent Court against the accused persons. Thereafter, the learned trial Court has framed charges against the petitioner and some prosecution witnesses have been examined. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the act of the respondents are illegal, erroneous, discriminatory and contrary to the law. The petitioner has neither promised for providing job, nor abducted victim nor committed sexual intercourse with her and nor committed any aforesaid offence as alleged by the prosecution against him which is clearly showing whasapp massage and transaction of money of bank statement by blackmailing to the applicant. Both sons of the present petitioner have made joint complaint to the concerned police station Podi (chowki Nagpur) District M.C.B. Chhattisgarh on 28.01.2024 and also made complaint to the S.P. District M.C.B. Chhattisgarh against the threatening by mobile No. 9617946807 true caller name Gourav to whole family members of the present petitioner to involve in false sexual intercourse in the name of Ruchika Chakradhari and also threatened to compromise in a false complaint. Thereafter, the S.P. Manendragarh has referred the case to the concerned police of police station City Kotwali Manendragarh in which the victim has clearly stated in her statement and her written complaint that she was knowing about the present petitioner and the petitioner has not committed any alleged offence with her and he has falsely been implicated in connection of this crime. It is an admitted fact that the victim has 5 also accepted to receive Rs.1,44,500/- by phone pay and Rs.10,00,000/- through cheque in her statement and victim and her mother have given contradictory evidence and their statement are not reliable. The present petitioner has neither committed any kind of aforesaid offences without any consent of the victim and the petitioner has falsely been implicated in connection of this crime based upon the false and baseless allegation. 5. Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State opposes the prayer for quashing of the charge-sheet and submits that in the present matter, since the charge-sheet has already been filed, charges have already been framed and trial has started and 04 prosecution witnesses including the complainant has already been examined, as such, this petition has virtually become infructuous and the same may be dismissed. Learned trial Court after considering all the aspects of the case, has rightly framed the charges against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 34 of the IPC, in which, no interference is sought for. 6. Learned State Counsel further argued that a bare perusal of charge-sheet goes to show that in the year 2019, when complainant was a minor, her cousin Pradeep Chakradhari and her friend Mustaq Qureshi, resident of Podi, tried to get her a job in the Forest Department. By luring her with the promise of meeting the Forest Officer, they called her to Manendragarh on 6 08.01.2019, upon which, the victim falling into the trap of the accused, left her home in Sonvarsha and reached Manendragarh bus stand, where Pradeep and Mustaq Qureshi introduced her to Forest Department officer Hiralal Sen and in Hiralal Sen's Marazzo car took her to Baikunthpur where Pradeep and Mustaq took her to a room near Jhumka Dam, left her and Hiralal Sen in a room and locked the room from outside and left. Hiralal Sen, knowing her to be a minor, forcibly did a wrong thing (rape) against her will and made a video of it on his mobile. Thereafter, by continuously threatening to make the video viral, he called her in different paces and assaulted her. Last time, Hiralal Sahu called the victim on 11.06.2024 to Baikunthpur and again raped her. Hence, looking to the serious allegations levelled against the petitioner and the nature and gravity of offence, the present petition deserves to be dismissed so that the trial be concluded and taken to its logical end. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the fact that charge-sheet has already been filed, charges have already been framed against the petitioner, trial has already been started and 04 prosecution witnesses including the complainant have already been examined, as such, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere in the present matter 7 as the FIR as well as the impugned charge-sheet, discloses cognizable offence and commission of heinous offence on the part of the petitioner. Hence, it is obligatory that the trial be brought to a 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/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet